Workforce Training
Almost Half of States Fund Employment Placement and Training through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with Federally Funded Programs Gao ID: GAO-04-282 February 13, 2004As technological and other advances transform the U.S. economy, many of the nation's six million employers may have trouble finding employees with the skills to do their jobs well. Some experts indicate that such a skill gap already affects many employers. To help close this skill gap, both federal- and state-funded programs are providing training and helping employers find qualified employees. In 2002, the federal government spent about $12 billion on workforce programs, and there are various studies on these programs. States also raised revenues in 2002--from taxes levied on employers--to fund their own workforce programs. However, little is known about these state programs. GAO was asked to provide information on how many states use these employer taxes to fund their own employment placement and training programs, what services are provided, the extent to which these state programs coordinate with federal programs, and how states assess the performance of these programs.
Twenty-three states reported using employer tax revenues in 2002 to fund their own employment placement and training programs, and states most often provided job-specific training for workers. States used various types of employer taxes and reported spending a total of $278 million to address state-specific workforce issues. States invested in a variety of industries, but manufacturing was the most frequently targeted. Most states with employment placement and training programs funded through employer taxes reported some coordination with federal workforce programs in 2002. States were most likely to coordinate with federal workforce programs by jointly promoting programs through outreach and referrals. According to most state officials, coordination with federal workforce programs raised awareness of their state-funded programs. Some state officials also reported that coordination improved the quality and availability of services. Twenty-two of the 23 states reported assessing the performance of their programs in 2002. However, none have used sufficiently rigorous research designs to allow them to make conclusive statements about the impact of their programs, such as their effect on worker wages or company earnings. Because these programs contribute to our nation's ability to provide comprehensive workforce development services to meet employers' needs for skilled workers, it would be helpful to have information on the impact of these efforts. The Department of Labor has valuable resources that might help states evaluate the impact of their programs.
GAO-04-282, Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Employment Placement and Training through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with Federally Funded Programs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-282
entitled 'Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Employment
Placement and Training through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with
Federally Funded Programs' which was released on February 13, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
February 2004:
Workforce Training:
Almost Half of States Fund Employment Placement and Training through
Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with Federally Funded
ProgramsWorkforce Training:
GAO-04-282:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-282, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
As technological and other advances transform the U.S. economy, many
of the nation‘s six million employers may have trouble finding
employees with the skills to do their jobs well. Some experts indicate
that such a skill gap already affects many employers.
To help close this skill gap, both federal- and state-funded programs
are providing training and helping employers find qualified employees.
In 2002, the federal government spent about $12 billion on workforce
programs, and there are various studies on these programs. States also
raised revenues in 2002”from taxes levied on employers”to fund their
own workforce programs. However, little is known about these state
programs.
GAO was asked to provide information on how many states use these
employer taxes to fund their own employment placement and training
programs, what services are provided, the extent to which these state
programs coordinate with federal programs, and how states assess the
performance of these programs.
What GAO Found:
Twenty-three states reported using employer tax revenues in 2002 to
fund their own employment placement and training programs, and states
most often provided job-specific training for workers. States used
various types of employer taxes and reported spending a total of $278
million to address state-specific workforce issues. States invested in
a variety of industries, but manufacturing was the most frequently
targeted.
Most states with employment placement and training programs funded
through employer taxes reported some coordination with federal
workforce programs in 2002. States were most likely to coordinate with
federal workforce programs by jointly promoting programs through
outreach and referrals. According to most state officials,
coordination with federal workforce programs raised awareness of their
state-funded programs. Some state officials also reported that
coordination improved the quality and availability of services.
Twenty-two of the 23 states reported assessing the performance of
their programs in 2002. However, none have used sufficiently rigorous
research designs to allow them to make conclusive statements about the
impact of their programs, such as their effect on worker wages or
company earnings. Because these programs contribute to our nation‘s
ability to provide comprehensive workforce development services to
meet employers‘ needs for skilled workers, it would be helpful to have
information on the impact of these efforts. The Department of Labor
has valuable resources that might help states evaluate the impact of
their programs.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-282.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Sigurd R. Nilsen at
(202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Nearly Half of All States Used Employer Taxes to Fund Their Own
Employment Placement and Training Programs, and States Most Often
Provided Job-Specific Training:
Most States with Employment Placement and Training Programs Funded
through Employer Taxes Reported Some Coordination with Federal
Workforce Programs:
Almost All States Reported Regularly Assessing the Performance of Their
Programs, but Program Impact Cannot be Determined:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix IObjectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Survey:
Review of State Program Assessments:
Site Visits:
Appendix II: Employer Tax Collections and Employer Tax-Funded Program
Budgets in 2002, as Reported by States:
Appendix III: Employer Tax-Funded Programs' Primary Emphasis,
Expenditures and Numbers Served, in 2002:
Appendix IV: Coordination between Federal Workforce Programs and State
Programs Funded through Employer Taxes in 2002:
Appendix V: Assessment Approaches Used in 2002, as Reported by States:
Appendix VI: Indicators Used in State Assessments:
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: One-Stop Center Mandatory Partners:
Table 2: Types of Employer Taxes States Reported Collecting and Using
to Fund Employment Placement and Training Services in 2002:
Table 3: Select Outcome Indicators Used by States in Assessments:
Table 4: The Year Employer Taxes Were First Used to Fund Employment
Placement and Training Programs by Selected States:
Table 5: Site-Selection Criteria:
Figures:
Figure 1: Relationship between State Workforce Investment Boards, Local
Workforce Investment Boards, and One-Stop Centers:
Figure 2: States that Reported Funding Their Own Employment Placement
and Training Programs with Employer Taxes in 2002:
Figure 3: Total Expenditures of Employer Tax-Funded Programs in 2002,
as Reported by States:
Figure 4: Year that States First Used Employer Taxes to Fund Employment
Placement and Training Services:
Figure 5: Industries Targeted by Most Employer Tax-Funded Programs in
2002, as Reported by States:
Figure 6: Size of Employers Targeted for Training Services by Employer
Tax-Funded Programs in 2002, as Reported by States:
Figure 7: Primary Service Focus of Employer Tax-Funded Programs in
2002, as Reported by States:
Figure 8: Employer Tax-Funded Program Expenditures by Service Area in
2002, as Reported by States:
Figure 9: Populations Targeted by Employer Tax-Funded Programs for
Training in 2002, as Reported by States:
Figure 10: Types of Training Services Provided in 2002, as Reported by
States:
Figure 11: Coordination Activities in 2002, as Reported by States:
Figure 12: Number of States Reporting Coordination between Their
Employer Funded Programs and Various Federal Workforce Programs, 2002:
Figure 13: States Report on the Results of Their Coordination with
Federal Workforce Programs, 2002:
Figure 14: Evaluators of State Programs, as Reported by States:
Abbreviations:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
UI: Unemployment Insurance:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 13, 2004:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Patty Murray:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions:
United States Senate:
As technological and other advances transform the U.S. economy, many of
the nation's six million employers may have trouble finding employees
with the necessary skills. A recent study found that 46 percent of
employers who participated in a workforce survey had difficulty
recruiting qualified job applicants.[Footnote 1] To help close the gap
between employer needs and employee skills, both federal-and state-
funded workforce programs are providing skills training and helping
employers find qualified employees. Although many studies provide
information on federally funded programs operating throughout the
country, little is known about the state-funded programs. These state
programs have the potential to enhance the federal workforce system and
upgrade the skills of the nation's workers.
The federal government funds 44 employment and training programs, such
as the Workforce Investment Act programs, that serve adults, dislocated
workers, and youth. Some of the services provided through federally
funded programs include: employment counseling and assessment, job
search and placement activities, and basic skills such as GED
preparation and basic adult literacy. In 2002, the federal government
spent about $12 billion on employment and training activities. States
have also raised their own funds to help upgrade the skills of their
workforces and match employers with qualified employees. States often
raise revenues for these programs through taxes levied on employers.
While some states use these revenues to supplement federally funded
services, like job training provided through the Workforce Investment
Act, other states use these revenues to fund their own employment
placement and training programs.
Because of your interest in these state-funded employment and training
efforts, and their relationship with those that are federally funded,
you requested that we determine:
* how many states use employer taxes to fund their own employment
placement and training programs, and what type of services do they
provide;
* the extent to which these state employment placement and training
programs are coordinating with federal workforce programs; and:
* how states are assessing the performance of their employment
placement and training programs.
To address these questions, we surveyed all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico to determine how many used employer taxes to
fund their own employment placement and training programs in
2002.[Footnote 2] We conducted a follow-up survey of the states that
had these programs to determine what services were provided, how they
are assessed, and the type and extent of coordination with federal
workforce programs. To learn more about state program assessments of
the performance of the programs, we analyzed recent assessments from
the states that could provide them to us. To gather more information
about coordination, we surveyed staff from workforce investment boards
in 6 states that began to fund their employment placement and training
programs through employer taxes in the 1980s. In addition, we visited 3
states--California, Louisiana, and Rhode Island--where we interviewed
officials from both state and federally funded workforce programs. We
selected these states because they are geographically diverse and their
employer-funded programs vary in age and funding levels. We also
reviewed existing studies and literature on state employment and
training programs. We conducted our work between February and November
2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. (For a complete description of our scope and methodology,
see app. I.):
Results in Brief:
Twenty-three states reported using a variety of employer tax revenues
in 2002 to fund their own employment placement and training programs,
and states most often provided job-specific training for workers. State
officials reported several reasons why these state-funded employment
placement and training services were offered in addition to those
offered through federally funded programs. Some states reported
establishing their programs as a way to address a variety of specific
workforce and economic issues, such as chronic shortages of skilled
workers. For example, Louisiana's program used employer tax revenues to
fund emergency medical services training after one of the state's
largest providers of paramedics and emergency medical care staff
reported needing to hire most of its staff from out of state due to a
lack of qualified workers. In addition, other states noted that their
employment placement and training programs address service and
eligibility gaps in federally funded workforce programs. States
reported spending a total of $278 million to provide these training and
employment placement services. California pioneered this use of
employer taxes in 1982, and most recently New Hampshire passed
legislation in 2001 to create its program. States invested funds in a
variety of industries, but manufacturing was the most frequently
targeted, while accommodation and food service industries were least
likely to be targeted. The primary focus of these state programs was
worker training, in particular job-specific training, such as
instruction on computer software and new production methods. States
were less likely to use employer taxes to provide training services for
nonjob-specific skills, including conflict resolution and team
building.
Twenty-one of the 23 states with employment placement and training
programs funded through employer taxes reported some coordination with
federal workforce programs in 2002. States were most likely to
coordinate with federal workforce programs by jointly promoting
programs through outreach and referrals. For example, officials in
Louisiana provided information packets to employers about how to
upgrade their employee's skills or fill job openings using state and
federally funded workforce programs. Other common coordination
activities involved the exchange of technical assistance and the
sharing of administrative resources. For example, California staff from
both state and federal workforce programs worked together on a task
force and provided each other with technical assistance to improve
services to small businesses. Similarly, several states reported that
they shared office space, staff, and other administrative resources.
Fewer states noted that they co-funded employment placement and
training services or jointly developed policies with federal workforce
programs. According to most state officials, coordination with federal
workforce programs raised awareness of their state-funded programs.
Some state officials also reported that coordination improved the
quality and availability of services. For example, a state official in
Michigan noted that as a result of coordination between the state
program and federally funded career centers, workers were exposed to a
broader range of employment and training services and job
opportunities.
While 22 of the 23 states reported assessing the performance of their
programs in 2002, none have used sufficiently rigorous research designs
to allow them to make conclusive statements about the impact of their
programs, such as their effect on worker wages or company earnings.
States used a range of approaches to assess their employment placement
and training programs, including variations in who conducted the
assessments, the data collection methods used for the assessments, and
the frequency of the assessments. Most states used a combination of
data collection methods for their assessments. For example, Tennessee's
assessment was based on data collected from site visits to training
locations and surveys administered to employers, while self-reported
feedback and a fiscal audit were the data sources used for Texas's
assessment. Of the 18 states that could provide us with assessments of
their individual employment placement and training programs, we found
that 4 states assessed their programs exclusively using process-
oriented indicators, such as the number and type of workers and
businesses served and the services offered. The 14 other states also
included outcome-oriented indicators along with process-oriented
indicators in their assessments, though none used appropriate
comparison groups to allow them to conclusively attribute outcomes to
their programs.
Background:
Technological advances continue to transform the U.S. workforce, and
workers must improve their skills to meet employers' changing needs.
Many employers report difficulties in finding qualified workers, and
many unemployed workers lack the skills they need to find jobs.
Training programs can help workers gain the skills needed for today's
jobs, and employment placement programs can help employers find
qualified employees.
Federally Funded Employment and Training Programs:
In 2002, the federal government funded 44 employment and training
programs that provided services, such as job search assistance,
employment counseling, basic adult literacy, and vocational training,
to over 30 million people at a cost of approximately $12
billion.[Footnote 3] Although these programs were administered by nine
federal agencies, many of the programs provided services to the public
through one-stop centers in communities throughout the country. When
the Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998, it
mandated that at least 17 federally funded programs provide employment
and training services through a one-stop center system (see table 1).
Table 1: One-Stop Center Mandatory Partners:
Federal Agency: Department of Labor:
Mandatory partner: WIA Adult.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor:
Mandatory partner: WIA Dislocated Worker.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor:
Mandatory partner: WIA Youth.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor:
Mandatory partner: Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser).
Federal Agency: Department of Labor:
Mandatory partner: Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor:
Mandatory partner: Veterans' employment and training programs.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor:
Mandatory partner: Unemployment Insurance.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor:
Mandatory partner: Job Corps.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor:
Mandatory partner: Welfare-to-Work Program[A].
Federal Agency: Department of Labor:
Mandatory partner: Senior Community Service Employment Program.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor:
Mandatory partner: Employment and training for migrant and seasonal
farm workers.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor: Employment and training for
Native Americans.
Federal Agency: Department of Education:
Mandatory partner: Vocational Rehabilitation Program.
Federal Agency: Department of Education:
Mandatory partner: Adult Education and Literacy.
Federal Agency: Department of Education: Vocational Education (Perkins
Act).
Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services:
Mandatory partner: Community Services Block Grant.
Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Mandatory partner: HUD-administered employment and training.
Source: 1998 Workforce Investment Act.
[A] The Welfare-to-Work Program provides a variety of services to move
welfare recipients, custodial parents with incomes below the poverty
line, and noncustodial parents of low-income children into employment.
These services include transitional employment, wage subsidies, job
training and placement, and post-employment services.
[End of table]
WIA also established workforce investment boards. Each state workforce
investment board is responsible for developing statewide workforce
policies and overseeing its local workforce investment boards. The
local workforce investment boards, in turn, are responsible for
developing local workforce policies and overseeing one-stop center
operations (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: Relationship between State Workforce Investment Boards, Local
Workforce Investment Boards, and One-Stop Centers:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Some of the federal employment and training programs are not required
to provide services through the one-stop centers. These include the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) and the H-1B
Technical Skills Training Grant Program. The TANF program is
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services and assists
needy adults with children in finding and retaining employment. The H-
1B Technical Skills Training Grants are administered by the Department
of Labor, and the funds are distributed to select local workforce
investment boards to increase the supply of skilled workers in
occupations identified as needing more workers.
State-Funded Employment and Training Programs:
In addition to federally funded programs, states use their own revenues
to expand employment placement and training opportunities.[Footnote 4]
For example, states create unemployment insurance (UI) tax offsets by
decreasing the UI tax amount paid by employers and at the same time
imposing a separate tax on employers for the same amount as the UI tax
deduction. In addition, states use other employer taxes, and revenues
from each states' UI interest fund or from UI penalty fees imposed on
employers. Employers may be charged UI penalty fees for late payments,
for failing to file a UI return for an employee, or for failing to
report an employee's wages. While all of these revenues are generated
through employer taxes, states also commit general revenue funds to
expand employment placement and training opportunities. A study for the
National Governors' Association Center for Best Practices found that
state-funded worker training programs are operating in 48
states.[Footnote 5]
States have increased the availability of employment placement and
training opportunities in various ways. Some states have used their
revenues to expand federally funded programs. In fact, a recent
national study by National Association of State Workforce Agencies
found that 19 states used these revenues to supplement WIA job training
services. Other states have used their revenues, including employer tax
funds, to create their own employment placement and training programs;
however, little is known about these programs.
Employer-Funded Training Programs:
Some employers invest their own resources in training their workers.
The exact amount of money that employers spend every year to train
their workers is difficult to estimate; a study of trends in employer-
provided training suggests that employers' financial commitment to
training has recently increased.[Footnote 6] Some individuals, as well,
invest their own funds for training as a way to either upgrade their
job-related skills or to become employable.
Types of Impact Evaluations for Public Programs:
Impact evaluations for public programs, like employment and training
programs, produce findings that allow conclusions about the
effectiveness of the programs to be made. These evaluations may be
implemented using a few different design strategies. Two designs that
are used to isolate a program's effects, such as those on participants,
are experimental designs and quasi-experimental designs.
* Experimental designs. These are characterized by the use of random
selection and control groups. All individuals have an equal chance of
being assigned to either the intervention group or the control group.
The intervention group contains individuals who will receive the
intervention, or program's services, while the control group does not
receive the intervention or services. This research design produces
findings that allow conclusions about the effectiveness, or impact, of
the intervention to be made. However, conducting experimental designs
may be problematic because of the need to treat intervention and
control groups differently. For example, to determine the impact of a
training program on workers' wages, a program would need to randomly
provide services to some and randomly deny services to others, and
track subsequent earnings for both groups of people. This approach
requires services to be denied to some workers who qualify for
training. Due to these difficulties, as well as the amount of time and
money it takes to conduct experimental designs, quasi-experimental
research designs are often preferable for their practicality.
* Quasi-experimental designs. These designs are characterized by
comparison groups that are not randomly selected. For training
programs, a quasi-experimental design would compare a group of people
who have elected to take the training courses with nonparticipants who
may have characteristics, such as wage or education levels, that are
comparable to the group receiving services. Comparing the two groups
allows researchers to account for other factors, such as the local
economy, that may have influenced outcomes.
Evaluation Resources at the Department of Labor:
The Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Office of Policy Development, Evaluation and Research has valuable
resources related to designing and implementing evaluations. Labor has
established evaluation coordination liaisons in each state to help with
evaluations of federal programs. These liaisons can help states access
logistical support and technical assistance for program evaluations.
Such resources include ETA's recent review of alternative research
methodologies, which contains guidance on conducting experimental and
quasi-experimental evaluations of workforce programs to determine the
social and economic values of the programs.[Footnote 7]
Nearly Half of All States Used Employer Taxes to Fund Their Own
Employment Placement and Training Programs, and States Most Often
Provided Job-Specific Training:
Twenty-three states reported using employer tax revenues in 2002 from a
variety of employer taxes to fund their own employment placement and
training programs. States most often provided job-specific training for
workers. States reported spending a total of $278 million to provide
these training and employment placement services. Some states
established their programs as a way to address a variety of specific
workforce and economic issues, such as chronic shortages of skilled
workers.
States Used a Variety of Employer Taxes to Provide Services to Address
Unique State Workforce Issues:
Twenty-three states reported using a variety of employer taxes in 2002
to fund employment placement and training services to address specific
workforce issues (see fig 2). These states reported spending a total of
$278 million on their workforce programs. Expenditures in 2002 varied
dramatically from state to state, ranging from $100,000 in Kansas to
over $84 million in California (see fig. 3). In 18 of the states,
employer tax revenues completely funded these employment and training
programs, while in 3 of the states employer tax revenues made up at
least 50 percent of the funding for these programs. Only 1 state
reported that employer tax dollars constituted less than 50 percent of
its program's funds.[Footnote 8] (For more information on individual
state employment placement and training program budgets in 2002, see
app. II.):
Figure 2: States that Reported Funding Their Own Employment Placement
and Training Programs with Employer Taxes in 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 3: Total Expenditures of Employer Tax-Funded Programs in 2002,
as Reported by States:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Notes: This figure is based on the survey question responses of 22
states. Montana did not provide us with expenditure data. Delaware,
Indiana, Michigan, and South Dakota reported that their program budgets
included funds from other sources, making it difficult to isolate
expenditures from their state employer tax revenues. While Oregon also
reported that its program budget included funds from other sources,
Oregon provided us with additional data. Oregon's expenditures included
in this figure are those that were solely funded through employer tax
revenues.
States used various types of employer taxes to fund employment
placement and training services (see table 2). Eleven states reported
using a UI tax offset. Eight states funded their programs through a
separate state employer tax. For example, Delaware employers were taxed
$12.75 for the first $8,500 of each employee's annual salary.
Similarly, Massachusetts's employers were taxed up to $8.10 per
employee annually. Five states used UI penalty and interest funds. One
state, California, reported combining funds from more than one employer
tax source and funded its program through revenues generated by a UI
tax offset and a separate state employer tax of up to $7 per employee.
(For more information on the total funds collected by states through
these employer taxes in 2002, see app. II.):
Table 2: Types of Employer Taxes States Reported Collecting and Using
to Fund Employment Placement and Training Services in 2002:
State: Alabama;
UI tax off-set: Yes;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: No.
State: California;
UI tax off-set: Yes;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: Yes.
State: Delaware;
UI tax off-set: No;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: Yes.
State: Hawaii;
UI tax off-set: No;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: Yes.
State: Idaho;
UI tax off-set: Yes;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: No.
State: Indiana;
UI tax off-set: No;
UI penalty or interest fund: Yes;
Separate state employer tax: No.
State: Kansas;
UI tax off-set: No;
UI penalty or interest fund: Yes;
Separate state employer tax: No.
State: Louisiana;
UI tax off-set: Yes;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: No.
State: Massachusetts;
UI tax off-set: No;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: Yes.
State: Michigan;
UI tax off-set: No;
UI penalty or interest fund: Yes;
Separate state employer tax: No.
State: Montana;
UI tax off-set: No;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: Yes.
State: Nebraska;
UI tax off-set: No;
UI penalty or interest fund: Yes;
Separate state employer tax: No.
State: New Jersey;
UI tax off-set: Yes;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: No.
State: New Hampshire;
UI tax off-set: Yes;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: No.
State: New York;
UI tax off-set: No;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: Yes.
State: Nevada;
UI tax off-set: No;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: Yes.
State: Oregon;
UI tax off-set: No;
UI penalty or interest fund: Yes;
Separate state employer tax: No.
State: Rhode Island;
UI tax off-set: No;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: Yes.
State: South Dakota;
UI tax off-set: Yes;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: No.
State: Tennessee;
UI tax off-set: Yes;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: No.
State: Texas;
UI tax off-set: Yes;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: No.
State: Washington;
UI tax off-set: Yes;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: No.
State: Wyoming;
UI tax off-set: Yes;
UI penalty or interest fund: No;
Separate state employer tax: No.
Source: GAO's survey of states that use employer taxes to fund their
own workforce programs.
Note: All 23 states that reported having these programs responded to
our survey.
[End of table]
California was the first state to use employer taxes for employment
placement and worker training in 1982 and other states have followed
suit (see fig. 4). In addition to California, 6 other states started
using employer taxes to fund employment placement and training services
by the end of the 1980s. New Hampshire most recently started to use
these tax revenues to fund its program in 2001. Texas is the only state
in our survey of programs operating in 2002 that has since terminated
its worker training program.
Figure 4: Year that States First Used Employer Taxes to Fund Employment
Placement and Training Services:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Texas's program was no longer in operation after 2002.
[End of figure]
Some states established their programs as a way to address a variety of
specific workforce and economic issues, such as chronic shortages of
skilled workers. For example, Louisiana used $1.3 million to create an
emergency medical services training program at a local community
college after one of the state's largest providers of paramedics and
emergency medical care staff reported needing to hire most of its staff
from out of state due to a lack of qualified workers. Similarly, to
increase the supply of elder care providers, California funded training
to certified nurses' assistants so that they could become vocational
nurses.
In addition, other states noted that their employment placement and
training programs address service and eligibility gaps in federally
funded workforce programs. For example, Rhode Island officials said
that because federal funds could not be used to provide training to
employed workers prior to the passage of WIA, their employer tax-funded
program provided employers with training funds specifically to improve
employed worker skills.[Footnote 9] New Jersey and Washington officials
also noted that their states used employer tax funds to provide
employment placement and training services that are not offered through
federally funded workforce programs. Other states, such as Louisiana,
used employer taxes to fund training services for individuals who do
not meet the income eligibility requirements used in WIA
programs.[Footnote 10]
Most states focused on certain industries, particularly manufacturing,
because of their overall benefit to the state's economy. California's
worker training program specifically targets manufacturing industries
because these industries tend to offer high-paying, stable employment.
Other industries that were also frequently targeted for training
include: information; health care or social assistance; professional,
scientific, or technical; and construction. Our earlier study examining
how states and local areas are training employed workers found similar
results: manufacturing along with health care and social assistance are
two of the most commonly targeted economic sectors for training
workers.[Footnote 11] Our survey of employer tax-funded state programs
also showed that industries that were least often targeted included
wholesale and retail trade, finance and insurance, and accommodation
and food service (see fig. 5).
Figure 5: Industries Targeted by Most Employer Tax-Funded Programs in
2002, as Reported by States:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: This figure is based on survey question responses from the 17
states that reported providing training services in 2002. Each state
could target multiple industries, therefore, bars will not sum to 17
states. Six states reported that they did not provide training services
and were not included in this analysis.
[End of figure]
States also targeted their services to certain employers as part of
their workforce and economic development strategies. Over 11,000
employers were provided training services, and most states provided
services for employers with 100 or fewer employees (see fig. 6). Rhode
Island, for example, offered employers with 100 or fewer employees
training grants of up to $10,000. Rhode Island officials said that they
targeted smaller employers because these employers often do not have
the resources to provide their workers with training and that smaller
employers make up the majority of the companies in the state.
Figure 6: Size of Employers Targeted for Training Services by Employer
Tax-Funded Programs in 2002, as Reported by States:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Notes: This figure is based on survey question responses from 15
states. Two states reported, "don't know" to this survey question. Six
states reported that they did not provide training services and were
not included in this analysis.
States provided services in a variety of ways. States reported
providing worker training either directly or through grants awarded to
employers or training providers. For example, Louisiana generally
awarded grants in amounts that covered an employer's entire training
costs. Employers could use these funds to provide training themselves,
hire private training contractors, or contract with public training
providers. Funded training could occur either during normal working
hours or off the clock. Louisiana officials noted that they encouraged
employers to use public training providers, most often the state's
technical colleges. On the other hand, California required employers to
contribute to training-related costs. Employers were expected to match
up to 100 percent of the training grant to pay for related expenses,
such as worker wages during training or training materials. Officials
from California reported that most training grants are awarded
contingent upon workers being trained on the job, as opposed to off the
clock. States funding employment placement services, such as interview
technique and resume writing workshops, provided services directly or
through other service providers.
Training Services More Often Funded Than Employment Placement Services:
States most often reported that worker training was the primary
emphasis of their employer tax-funded programs and spent more on worker
training services than on employment placement services (see fig. 7).
Fourteen states reported that worker training was the primary emphasis
of their programs, and 10 of these states funded worker training
exclusively. States spent approximately $202 million on worker training
services; this represents 72 percent of the total funds spent on
employment placement and training services (see fig. 8).[Footnote 12]
States used these funds to provide a variety of training services. For
example, in Louisiana funds were used to provide training related to
automobile services and repairs, welding, painting, and sandblasting.
Funds were also used in Louisiana to purchase training equipment, such
as a Bridge Resource Management Simulator, which was used for river
navigation training. States reported providing training services to
about 200,000 people and were more likely to focus on the provision of
training services to employed workers as opposed to dislocated workers
or those receiving UI benefits (see fig. 9).[Footnote 13] (For a
detailed review of states' primary service focus, expenditures by
service area, and the number of individuals served in 2002, see app.
III.):
Figure 7: Primary Service Focus of Employer Tax-Funded Programs in
2002, as Reported by States:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: This figure is based on survey question responses from 23
states. One state reported its primary service focus as "other.":
[End of figure]
Figure 8: Employer Tax-Funded Program Expenditures by Service Area in
2002, as Reported by States:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: This figure is based on survey question responses from 22
states. Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, and South Dakota reported that
their program budgets included funds from other sources, making it
difficult to isolate expenditures from their state employer tax
revenues. While Oregon also reported that its program budget included
funds from other sources, Oregon provided us with additional data.
Oregon's expenditures included in this figure are those that were
solely funded through employer tax revenues.
[End of figure]
Figure 9: Populations Targeted by Employer Tax-Funded Programs for
Training in 2002, as Reported by States:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
States were most likely to provide job-specific training--such as on
new production methods and computer software--and 17 states reported
funding these types of services with employer tax revenues (see fig.
10). Officials from Louisiana said that they focus on job-specific
training because this type of training contributes to increased worker
productivity and company growth. State officials also noted that
fostering company growth creates new jobs that can lower state
unemployment rates.
Figure 10: Types of Training Services Provided in 2002, as Reported by
States:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Twenty-three states responded to this survey question.
[End of figure]
States were less likely to use employer taxes to provide nonjob-
specific training, including conflict resolution, team building, or how
to dress appropriately for the workplace. Twelve of the 23 states
reported providing this type of training. These findings echo our
previous study on worker training that found similar trends: states
were more likely to focus state and federal funds on occupational
training as compared to nonjob-specific training.[Footnote 14] Basic
skills training--such as math, GED preparation, and English as a second
language--is least often provided, with only 10 states reporting they
used employer tax revenues to fund this type of training.
Fewer state employer tax-funded programs emphasized employment
placement services, such as career counseling, skill assessments, and
self-access employment services like Internet job listings and career
planning videos. Eight states reported that employment placement was
their primary focus, and 6 of these states funded employment placement
services exclusively. States reported spending approximately $77
million to provide employment placement services to approximately 1.17
million individuals. Despite the fact that fewer states reported
emphasizing employment placement services, the total number of
individuals receiving employment placement services is approximately
six times as great as the total number of individuals receiving
training services.[Footnote 15] The difference in the number of people
served may be attributed to the time and resource intensity of training
services compared with employment placement services. For example,
Louisiana awards training grants that are up to 2 years in length. In
comparison with training services, many of the employment placement
services that states reported providing are far less time-and resource-
intensive.
Most States with Employment Placement and Training Programs Funded
through Employer Taxes Reported Some Coordination with Federal
Workforce Programs:
Twenty-one of the 23 states with employment placement and training
programs funded through employer taxes reported some coordination with
federal workforce programs in 2002. The most common coordination
activity reported by states was the joint promotion of state and
federally funded workforce programs through outreach or referrals (see
fig. 11). These promotion activities occurred in various ways. For
example, in California, a local workforce investment board and its one-
stop center hired staff to make cold calls to companies advertising the
benefits of participating in the state-funded training program. In
Louisiana, on the other hand, state officials provided information
packets to employers about how to upgrade their employees' skills or
fill job openings using state and federally funded workforce programs.
Figure 11: Coordination Activities in 2002, as Reported by States:
[See PDF for image]
Note: A coordination activity was counted if a state reported it for at
least one federal partnership.
[End of figure]
In addition, many states reported that they coordinated with federal
workforce programs by sharing technical assistance and administrative
resources. Technical assistance involves the exchange of program
information to improve program practices. For example, in California,
staff from both state and federally funded workforce programs worked
together on a task force and provided each other with technical
assistance to improve services to small businesses. Sharing
administrative resources, on the other hand, can involve activities
such as using a common management information system, or sharing office
space or staff. In Rhode Island, for example, staff at the local
workforce investment boards were responsible for administering some of
the training grants funded by the state program. Fewer states reported
co-funding employment and training services or jointly developing
policies with federal workforce programs.
The number of partnerships between employer tax-funded programs and the
federal workforce system varied from state to state. Some state
programs coordinated with only one federal partner. For example, New
Hampshire's program chose to coordinate exclusively with its state
workforce investment board. Other state programs coordinated with many
federal partners. For example, Delaware's program coordinated with a
one-stop center, TANF, the H1-B technical skill grants program, and
other federal workforce programs. (For additional information on each
state's partnerships with federal programs, see app. IV.):
Although state employer tax-funded programs vary in their relationships
with federal workforce programs, some patterns are evident regarding
the most common federal partners. The majority of the states (19)
reported coordinating with at least one one-stop center during 2002.
However, several one-stop centers can operate in a state, and we do not
know if states coordinated with more than one of these centers. Thus,
it is difficult to gauge the degree of coordination between state-
funded programs and one-stop centers within each state. Nevertheless,
we do know that many states also reported coordinating with state
workforce investment boards, of which there is only one per state (see
fig. 12). The number of federal partners that state employer-funded
programs have does not seem to be closely associated with the number of
years that the state programs have operated. Although Delaware's
program is older than New Hampshire's and coordinated with more federal
workforce programs, this is not a consistent pattern across the
country. For example, Kansas reported fewer federal partners than
Louisiana, despite the fact that Kansas's employer tax-funded program
has been in existence for about a decade longer.
Figure 12: Number of States Reporting Coordination between Their
Employer Funded Programs and Various Federal Workforce Programs, 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: All 23 states that reported having these programs responded to
the survey questions regarding coordination with state workforce
investment boards, TANF, other federal employment and training
programs, Department of Education employment and training programs, and
the Welfare-to-Work program. In addition, 22 states responded to the
survey questions regarding coordination with one-stop centers and the
H1-B program, while 20 states responded to the question regarding
coordination with local workforce investment boards.
The Welfare-to-Work program is a mandated partner of one-stop centers.
While all states that reported coordinating with the Welfare-to-Work
program also reported coordinating with a one-stop center, not all
states that reported coordinating with a one-stop center also reported
coordinating with the Welfare-to-Work program. States had the option to
list multiple programs under both the "Department of Education
Employment and Training" category and the "Other Federal Employment and
Training program" category. For the "Department of Education" category,
states noted programs such as Adult Education and Literacy and
Vocational Education. For the "Other Federal Employment and Training
program" category, programs ranged from Veterans' Employment and
Training Service to Job Corps. Both the Department of Education
category and the Other Federal Employment and Training category
included some programs that are mandated one-stop partners.
[End of figure]
As a result of their various partnerships with workforce investment
boards and one-stop centers, almost all states reported an increase in
awareness of their employer tax-funded programs. In addition, some
state officials noted that coordination had improved service quality
and availability. For example, officials from Michigan and New Jersey's
state programs, as well as an official from an Oregon workforce
investment board, noted that co-locating staff from the state-funded
programs at the one-stop centers improved the services delivered to
individuals. By co-locating these programs, state officials said that
they can help these individuals learn about a broader range of
employment and training services and job opportunities. The Oregon
official also pointed out that such co-location can reduce
transportation and child care barriers for clients. Coordination can
also assist states in improving services to employers. For example, a
state official from Idaho reported that having staff members who are
knowledgeable about both the state-funded program and WIA programs
enables them to better meet the needs of employers looking to expand
their businesses or move to the state. Although many state officials
noted that coordination had improved services, they were less likely to
report increases in funding for employment and training services as a
result of these collaborative relationships (see fig. 13).
Figure 13: States Report on the Results of Their Coordination with
Federal Workforce Programs, 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: All 23 states that reported having these programs responded to
our survey. Of these states, all 19 that reported coordinating with at
least one one-stop center answered the survey questions on awareness,
quality, and amount of services, while 18 of these states answered the
funding question. In addition, 15 of the 17 states that reported
coordinating with a state workforce investment board answered these
survey questions. All 11 states that reported coordinating with at
least one local workforce investment board also answered the questions
related to awareness, quality, and amount of services, while 10 of
these states responded to the survey question regarding funding
results.
[End of figure]
Almost All States Reported Regularly Assessing the Performance of Their
Programs, but Program Impact Cannot be Determined:
Twenty-two of the 23 states with employer-funded employment placement
and training programs reported assessing the performance of their
programs in 2002, though program impacts could not be determined.
States reported using a range of approaches to assess their employment
placement and training programs, including variations in who conducted
the assessments, data collection methods used for the assessments, and
the frequency of the assessments. Of the 18 states that could provide
assessments of their individual employment placement and training
programs, 4 assessed their programs exclusively using process-oriented
indicators, while the other 14 used outcome-oriented indicators in
their assessments. However, none of the states used sufficiently
rigorous research designs to allow them to make conclusive statements
about the impact of their programs.
Almost All States Reported Regularly Assessing the Performance of Their
Programs in 2002:
Twenty-two of the 23 states with employer-funded employment placement
and training programs reported assessing the performance of their
programs in 2002. States reported using a variety of data collection
methods for their assessments, and most states used a combination of
data sources for their assessments. For example, Tennessee's assessment
was based on data collected from site visits to training locations and
surveys administered to employers, while self-reported feedback and a
fiscal audit were the data sources used for Texas's assessment. The
most commonly used data sources were: surveys, self-reported feedback,
and on-site visits. Only 2 states relied solely on quantitative data,
such as program expenditures and employment statistics. For example,
Alabama used its UI wage database to track how program participants
fared in finding jobs.
Most states used a combination of internal and external evaluators for
their assessments (see fig. 14).[Footnote 16] For example, California
used both in-house program staff and external evaluators from several
state universities to evaluate its program. On the other hand, 9 states
used in-house evaluators exclusively, while only 1 state, Indiana, used
external evaluators exclusively.
Figure 14: Evaluators of State Programs, as Reported by States:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: Some states reported using combinations of evaluators, which may
include in-house program staff and external evaluators. Percentages do
not total to 100 due to rounding.
[End of figure]
Furthermore, states conducted their assessments at varying intervals.
About two-thirds of the states (14) regularly conducted assessments--
annually, quarterly, and monthly. Eight states conducted assessments
once training contracts were completed. For example, Tennessee sent
surveys to employers once the contracts it awarded were completed.
Results Regarding Program Impact from States' Assessments Cannot Be
Determined by Methodologies Used:
None of the state assessments used sufficiently rigorous research
designs to allow them to make conclusive statements about the impact of
their programs. We asked states to provide us with copies of recent
assessments of their programs.[Footnote 17] Although 5 states could not
provide us with assessments of their individual employment and training
programs, 18 of the 23 states shared recent assessments with us. On the
basis of the 28 assessments received from 18 states, we examined
indicators used by the states and found that 4 assessed their programs
exclusively using process-oriented indicators.[Footnote 18] For
example, Hawaii and New Hampshire collected data on the number of
businesses served. Likewise, Alabama and Texas both collected data on
how many people participated in their programs. Process-oriented
indicators help assess a number of factors, including who uses the
program, how funds are spent, and how well a program is being
implemented.
Fourteen states included outcome-oriented indicators along with
process-oriented indicators in their assessments, with 11 states
measuring worker wages (see table 3). States also used a variety of
other outcome-oriented indicators, including job placement and
retention rates of trainees. Outcome-oriented indicators provide
important data for states related to changes, such as those in: worker
wages, employment stability, and advancement rates.
Table 3: Select Outcome Indicators Used by States in Assessments:
California;
Wage increases: Yes;
Retention rates: Yes;
Job placements: No;
Return on investment: Yes;
Employment stability: Yes;
Advancement rates: Yes;
Use of UI benefits: Yes.
Idaho;
Wage increases: Yes;
Retention rates: No;
Job placements: No;
Return on investment: No;
Employment stability: No;
Advancement rates: No;
Use of UI benefits: No.
Indiana;
Wage increases: Yes;
Retention rates: No;
Job placements: No;
Return on investment: No;
Employment stability: No;
Advancement rates: No;
Use of UI benefits: No.
Kansas;
Wage increases: Yes;
Retention rates: No;
Job placements: No;
Return on investment: No;
Employment stability: No;
Advancement rates: No;
Use of UI benefits: No.
Louisiana;
Wage increases: Yes;
Retention rates: No;
Job placements: No;
Return on investment: No;
Employment stability: No;
Advancement rates: Yes;
Use of UI benefits: No.
Massachusetts;
Wage increases: Yes;
Retention rates: No;
Job placements: No;
Return on investment: No;
Employment stability: No;
Advancement rates: No;
Use of UI benefits: No.
Montana;
Wage increases: No;
Retention rates: No;
Job placements: No;
Return on investment: Yes;
Employment stability: No;
Advancement rates: No;
Use of UI benefits: No.
Nebraska;
Wage increases: Yes;
Retention rates: No;
Job placements: No;
Return on investment: No;
Employment stability: No;
Advancement rates: No;
Use of UI benefits: No.
Nevada;
Wage increases: Yes;
Retention rates: No;
Job placements: No;
Return on investment: No;
Employment stability: No;
Advancement rates: No;
Use of UI benefits: No.
New Jersey;
Wage increases: Yes;
Retention rates: No;
Job placements: No;
Return on investment: No;
Employment stability: No;
Advancement rates: No;
Use of UI benefits: No.
New York;
Wage increases: No;
Retention rates: No;
Job placements: No;
Return on investment: No;
Employment stability: No;
Advancement rates: No;
Use of UI benefits: Yes.
Oregon;
Wage increases: No;
Retention rates: No;
Job placements: Yes;
Return on investment: No;
Employment stability: No;
Advancement rates: No;
Use of UI benefits: No.
South Dakota;
Wage increases: Yes;
Retention rates: No;
Job placements: No;
Return on investment: No;
Employment stability: No;
Advancement rates: No;
Use of UI benefits: No.
Wyoming;
Wage increases: Yes;
Retention rates: No;
Job placements: No;
Return on investment: No;
Employment stability: No;
Advancement rates: No;
Use of UI benefits: No.
Source: GAO's content analysis of assessments provided.
[End of table]
Although 14 states used outcome-oriented indicators, none used
sufficiently rigorous research designs to allow them to make conclusive
statements about the impact of their programs. Twelve of the 14 states
that used outcome-oriented indicators did not use comparison groups in
their evaluation design. Without comparing a program's participants to
similar nonparticipants, it is not possible to account for other
factors, such as an upturn in the local economy, which may have
influenced participant outcomes. While 2 states used comparison groups,
their methodological design did not allow for the identification of
conclusive impacts of these programs because their comparison groups
were not comparable enough to their participant groups.
Concluding Observations:
To help close the gap between employer needs and employee skills, both
federal-and state-funded workforce programs are providing skills
training to employees and helping employers find qualified employees.
Twenty-three states used employer taxes in 2002 to fund their own
employment placement and training programs. These state programs have
the potential to enhance the federal workforce system by filling
service and eligibility gaps. However, the impact of these programs is
unknown because states have not adequately studied them. Because these
programs contribute to our nation's ability to provide comprehensive
workforce development services to meet employers' needs for skilled
workers, it would be helpful to have information on the impact of these
efforts.
The Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Office of Policy Development, Evaluation and Research has valuable
resources related to designing and implementing evaluations that might
help address this lack of information. Labor has established evaluation
coordination liaisons in each state and, although this position was
designed to help with evaluations for federal programs, the liaison may
be able to direct state program administrators to resources such as
ETA's recent review of alternative research methodologies. Furthermore,
this liaison could help state administrators access other program
evaluation expertise, such as logistical support and technical
assistance.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor for its
review, and Labor provided technical comments. Labor expressed an
interest in state employment placement and training programs funded by
employer taxes. In addition, Labor acknowledged the importance of
collaboration between these state-funded programs and federally funded
programs, by noting that it may seek opportunities to better assist
states in coordinating their programs with federal Workforce Investment
Act programs.
We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, relevant
congressional committees, and other interested parties. Copies will be
made available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Please
contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staffs have any questions
about this report. Other major contributors to this report are listed
in appendix VII.
Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Signed by Sigurd R. Nilsen:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We were asked to determine (1) How many states use employer taxes to
fund their own employment placement and training programs, and what
type of services do they provide;[Footnote 19] (2) The extent to which
these state employment placement and training programs are coordinating
with federal workforce programs;[Footnote 20] and (3) How states are
assessing the performance of their employment placement and training
programs.
To address these questions, we conducted three surveys, reviewed
program evaluations, and visited 3 states. First, we surveyed all 50
states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico to identify those
that were using employer tax revenues to provide their own employment
placement or training programs in 2002.[Footnote 21] We then conducted
a follow-up survey with the 23 states that reported using employer
taxes to fund their own programs during state fiscal year
2002.[Footnote 22] Specifically, we surveyed the state programs that
reported receiving the largest portion of employer tax revenues
collected in their state to provide employment placement and training
services.[Footnote 23] To gain a perspective on service coordination
with federally funded workforce programs, we surveyed staff from
workforce investment boards in 6 states that began to fund their
employment placement and training programs through employer taxes in
the 1980s.[Footnote 24] We also requested recent assessments from the
23 states we surveyed and reviewed the assessments from the 18 states
that could provide them to us.[Footnote 25] Finally, we conducted site
visits to 3 states--California, Louisiana, and Rhode Island.
Survey:
To determine how many states used employer taxes to fund their own
employment placement and training programs, we surveyed workforce
officials from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. This structured survey was administered via e-mail and the
telephone and had a 100 percent response rate. Twenty-three states
reported that they used employer tax revenues to fund their own
employment placement and training programs in state fiscal year
2002.[Footnote 26]
To determine the types of employment placement and training services
states offered, we conducted a second survey of the 23 states that
reported using employer taxes to fund these services in our first
survey. This survey was designed to obtain information related to
program mission, services provided, populations served (individuals and
industries), budget size, and expenditures. To determine if states
assessed their programs, we also asked questions related to the
frequency of program performance assessments and the types of methods
used to measure program performance. In addition, we requested copies
of recent program assessment reports.
To determine the extent to which state programs coordinated with
federal workforce programs, we also asked states to report how their
employment placement and training programs worked with federal
organizations and programs, including workforce investment boards, one-
stop centers, TANF, Welfare-to-Work, H1-B grants, employment placement
and training programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education,
and other federally funded programs. In addition, we asked states how
these coordination efforts affected program awareness, quality of
service, available funding, and the amount of employment placement and
training services available.
To gain the perspective of officials from federally funded programs on
coordination with these state programs, we administered a structured
telephone survey to representatives from workforce investment boards
operating in 6 states that began their employer tax-funded employment
placement or training programs during the 1980s (see table 4).[Footnote
27] We chose these states with older programs, because we believed that
they would have more established partnerships with federal programs and
would be able to provide in-depth information on coordination. We
surveyed representatives from 5 of the state workforce investment
boards.[Footnote 28] We also surveyed a total of 10 purposively and
randomly selected local workforce investment boards. At least one local
workforce investment board was surveyed from each state that began
operating its employer tax-funded program during the 1980s.
Table 4: The Year Employer Taxes Were First Used to Fund Employment
Placement and Training Programs by Selected States:
State: Alabama; Year employer taxes first used to fund services: 1989.
State: California; Year employer taxes first used to fund services:
1982.
State: Delaware[A]; Year employer taxes first used to fund services:
1986.
State: Kansas; Year employer taxes first used to fund services: 1986.
State: Nevada; Year employer taxes first used to fund services: 1989.
State: Oregon; Year employer taxes first used to fund services: 1987.
State: Washington; Year employer taxes first used to fund services:
1985.
Source: GAO's survey of states that use employer taxes to fund their
own workforce programs.
[A] As previously noted, although Delaware's program began in 1986, a
separate survey of Delaware's workforce investment board was
unnecessary because the state's employer-funded program also functions
as its only workforce investment board. All coordination questions in
our workforce investment board survey were answered by an official from
Delaware in our survey of employer-funded state employment placement
and training programs.
[End of table]
We included steps in both the survey data collection and data analysis
stages to account for and minimize the variability that occurs when
respondents interpret questions differently or have different
information available to them. For example, survey specialists along
with subject matter specialists designed each questionnaire, and we
pre-tested each questionnaire with the appropriate target audience to
ensure that questions were clear. We pre-tested our workforce
investment board survey with representatives from state workforce
investment boards and a local workforce investment board. We also
reviewed survey questionnaire responses for consistency and in several
cases contacted respondents to resolve inconsistencies. However, we did
not otherwise verify the information provided in the responses. In
order to increase our response rate for each survey, we followed up
with program officials through e-mail and telephone contact. We
analyzed these survey data by calculating descriptive statistics.
Review of State Program Assessments:
We reviewed recent assessments from the 18 states that could provide
them to us.[Footnote 29] Two of those states shared more than one
recent assessment with us, all of which we used in our analysis. The
assessments we collected ranged from annual reports to budget briefings
to strategic plans to external evaluations.
We analyzed these reports by performing a content analysis in which we
coded the assessment indicators as outputs (process-oriented data) or
outcomes (outcome-oriented data). Furthermore, when provided, we
analyzed the research designs states used to assess their programs
against standard evaluation research design characteristics as
described by Rossi and Freeman (1993)[Footnote 30] and McBurney
(1994).[Footnote 31]
Site Visits:
We selected 3 states for site visits according to several criteria,
including the year employer taxes were first used to fund their
employment placement and training program. We chose states that were
early, mid-and late implementers. Site selection was also based on
diverse program funding levels and geographic diversity (see table 5).
In each state, we interviewed officials responsible for administering
each state's employer tax-funded employment placement or training
program to gain further insight into the types of services provided and
populations served by these programs. To learn more about the extent to
which these state-funded employment placement and training programs
coordinate with federally funded workforce programs, we also
interviewed officials from each state's workforce investment board. We
also interviewed officials from two one-stop career centers operating
in each state we visited. We purposively selected these one-stop career
centers because they coordinated with employer-funded state programs.
Table 5: Site-Selection Criteria:
State: California;
Budget: $94,000,000;
Year employer taxes were first used to fund services: 1982;
Geographic location: West.
State: Louisiana;
Budget: $50,000,000;
Year employer taxes were first used to fund services: 1997;
Geographic location: South.
State: Rhode Island;
Budget: $8,000,000;
Year employer taxes were first used to fund services: 1993;
Geographic location: Northeast.
Source: GAO's survey of states that use employer taxes to fund their
own workforce programs.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Employer Tax Collections and Employer Tax-Funded Program
Budgets in 2002, as Reported by States:
State: Alabama;
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$8,200,000;
2002 program budgets: $5,000,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: California;
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$148,900,000;
2002 program budgets: $94,000,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: Delaware[B];
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$3,600,000;
2002 program budgets: $10,300,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: No.
State: Hawaii[B];
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$2,000,000;
2002 program budgets: $6,800,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: Idaho;
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$3,400,000;
2002 program budgets: $3,400,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: Indiana[B];
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$1,000,000;
2002 program budgets: $4,000,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: No.
State: Kansas;
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$1,000,000;
2002 program budgets: $100,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: Louisiana;
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$50,000,000;
2002 program budgets: $50,000,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: Massachusetts[B];
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$22,200,000;
2002 program budgets: $24,000,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: Michigan;
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
[C];
2002 program budgets: $1,500,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: No.
State: Montana;
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$6,200,000;
2002 program budgets: $286,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: Nebraska;
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$1,900,000;
2002 program budgets: $1,900,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: Nevada[B];
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$8,400,000;
2002 program budgets: $9,400,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: New Hampshire;
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
[C];
2002 program budgets: $500,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: New Jersey;
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$92,400,000;
2002 program budgets: $81,400,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: New York[B];
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$35,000,000;
2002 program budgets: $40,800,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: Oregon[B];
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$9,800,000;
2002 program budgets: $1,189,400,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: No.
State: Rhode Island;
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$8,000,000;
2002 program budgets: $8,000,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: South Dakota;
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
[C];
2002 program budgets: $1,800,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: No.
State: Tennessee[B];
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$8,200,000;
2002 program budgets: $19,112,400;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: Texas;
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
[C];
2002 program budgets: $1,200,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: Washington[B];
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$9,700,000;
2002 program budgets: $10,700,000;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
State: Wyoming[B];
Total funds collected through employer taxes to be used in 2002[A]:
$1,300,000;
2002 program budgets: $3,828,366;
Program solely funded through employer taxes: Yes.
Source: GAO's survey of states that use employer taxes to fund their
own workforce programs.
[A] Eleven states reported that their employer tax was collected in
2002, and 3 states reported that their employer tax was collected in
2001. Four states reported that employer tax funds used in 2002 were
collected in 2001 and 2002. One state noted that tax funds collected
in 2002 and from previous years were used in 2002. One state noted
that employer tax funds used in 2002 were collected in 1991 and 1995,
and another state noted that employer tax funds used in 2002 were
collected in 1997. Two states were unable to specify in which year the
employer taxes used to fund their programs in 2002 were collected.
[B] These states' program budgets for state fiscal year 2002 were
greater than the amount collected through each state's employer tax.
Reasons for this disparity varied and included rollovers of unspent
funds from previous years. Some states, specifically Delaware,
Indiana, Michigan, Oregon, and South Dakota, also used other funding
sources in addition to employer tax revenues to pay for these
programs. In Indiana, Michigan, and South Dakota at least 50 percent of the funding for these programs came from employer taxes. However, in Oregon employer taxes constituted less than half of the funds used for the program. Delaware did not specify the portion of its program budget funded by employer taxes.
[C] Our survey permitted states to report "DK" or "Don't Know.":
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Employer Tax-Funded Programs' Primary Emphasis,
Expenditures and Numbers Served, in 2002:
State: Alabama;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: No;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: Yes;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: N/A[A];
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: 122,447;
Expenditures by service: Training: N/A;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: $5,000,000.
State: California;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: Yes;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: No;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: 75,000;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: 5,000;
Expenditures by service: Training: $84,200,000;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: [B].
State: Delaware[C];
Primary emphasis: Worker training: No;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: Yes;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: 1,666;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: 1,666;
Expenditures by service: Training: $3,142,000;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: $360,000.
State: Hawaii;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: Yes;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: No;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: 10,000;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: N/ A;
Expenditures by service: Training: $3,300,000;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: N/A.
State: Idaho[E];
Primary emphasis: Worker training: No;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: No;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: [B];
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: [B];
Expenditures by service: Training: $2,600,000;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: [B].
State: Indiana[CF];
Primary emphasis: Worker training: Yes;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: No;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: 2,780;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: [B];
Expenditures by service: Training: $33,000,000;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: $14,000,000.
State: Kansas;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: No;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: Yes;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: N/A;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: 1,134;
Expenditures by service: Training: N/A;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: $100,000.
State: Louisiana;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: Yes;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: No;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: 17,564;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: N/A;
Expenditures by service: Training: $18,610,000;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: N/A.
State: Massachusetts;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: Yes;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: No;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: 27,000;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: N/A;
Expenditures by service: Training: $21,700,000;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: N/A.
State: Michigan[CF];
Primary emphasis: Worker training: No;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: Yes;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: N/A;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: 185;
Expenditures by service: Training: N/A;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: $2,820,000.
State: Montana;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: Yes;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: No;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: 1,100;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: N/ A;
Expenditures by service: Training: [B];
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: N/A.
State: Nebraska;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: Yes;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: No;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: 16,732;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: N/A;
Expenditures by service: Training: $1,800,000;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: N/A.
State: Nevada;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: No;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: Yes;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: 4,256;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: 8,310;
Expenditures by service: Training: $1,000,000;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: $1,000,000.
State: New Hampshire;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: Yes;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: No;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: 939;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: N/A;
Expenditures by service: Training: $180,000;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: N/A.
State: New Jersey;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: Yes;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: No;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: 34,685;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: 0;
Expenditures by service: Training: $11,800,000;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: [B].
State: New York;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: No;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: Yes;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: N/A;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: 332,000;
Expenditures by service: Training: N/A;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: $39,700,000.
State: Oregon[C];
Primary emphasis: Worker training: No;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: Yes;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: [B];
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: 462,549;
Expenditures by service: Training: $5,500,000[G];
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: $4,300,000.
State: Rhode Island;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: Yes;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: No;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: [B];
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: [B];
Expenditures by service: Training: $3,000,000;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: $560,000.
State: South Dakota[C];
Primary emphasis: Worker training: Yes;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: No;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: 2,051;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: N/A;
Expenditures by service: Training: $1,100,000;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: N/A.
State: Tennessee;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: Yes;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: No;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: 4,200;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: N/A;
Expenditures by service: Training: $8,600,000;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: N/A.
State: Texasd;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: Yes;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: No;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: [D];
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: N/A;
Expenditures by service: Training: $390,000;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: N/A.
State: Washington;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: No;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: Yes;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: N/A;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: 252,487;
Expenditures by service: Training: N/A;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: $8,800,000.
State: Wyoming;
Primary emphasis: Worker training: Yes;
Primary emphasis: Employment placement: No;
Numbers serviced by service: Training: 1,081;
Numbers serviced by service: Employment placement: 0;
Expenditures by service: Training: $1,920,000;
Expenditures by service: Employment placement: [B].
Source: GAO's survey of states that use employer taxes to fund their
own workforce programs.
[A] We use the not applicable notation "N/A" for states that did not
provide this service.
[B] Applicable data not provided.
[C] Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, and South Dakota reported that their
program budgets included funds from other sources, making it difficult
to isolate expenditures from their state employer tax revenues. While
Oregon also reported that its program budget included funds from other
sources, Oregon provided us with additional data. Oregon's
expenditures included in this figure are those that were solely funded
through employer tax revenues.
[D] Texas was unable to provide us with the number of individuals that
received training services in 2002.
[E] Idaho reported its program emphasis as "other.":
[F] Indiana and Michigan reported expenditures that exceeded their
program budgets.
[G] Oregon, however, noted in our survey that it did not provide
training in 2002.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Coordination between Federal Workforce Programs and State
Programs Funded through Employer Taxes in 2002:
State: Alabama;
State Workforce Investment Board: No;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): No;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: Yes;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: Yes;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: Yes;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: Yes.
State: California;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): Yes;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: No;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: No;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: No;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: Yes.
State: Delaware;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): N/A;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: Yes;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: Yes;
Welfare-to-Work: Yes;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: Yes;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: Yes.
State: Hawaii;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): Yes;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: No;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: No;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: No;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: Yes.
State: Idaho;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): Yes;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: Yes;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: No;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: Yes;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: No.
State: Indiana;
State Workforce Investment Board: No;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): Yes;
One-Stop Center(s): No;
TANF: No;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: No;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: No;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: No.
State: Kansas;
State Workforce Investment Board: No;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): No;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: No;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: No;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: No;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: No.
State: Louisiana;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): Yes;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: No;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: No;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: No;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: No.
State: Massachusetts;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): Yes;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: No;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: Yes;
Welfare-to-Work: No;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: No;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: No.
State: Michigan;
State Workforce Investment Board: No;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): No;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: No;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: No;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: Yes;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: Yes.
State: Montana;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): No;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: Yes;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: Yes;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: Yes;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: No.
State: Nebraska;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): No;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: No;
H1- B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: No;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: No;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: No.
State: Nevada;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): Yes;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: Yes;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: Yes;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: Yes;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: Yes.
State: New Hampshire;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): N/A;
One-Stop Center(s): No;
TANF: No;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: No;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: No;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: No.
State: New Jersey;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): Yes;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: No;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: No;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: No;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: No.
State: New York;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): Yes;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: Yes;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: Yes;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: Yes;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: Yes.
State: Oregon;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): Yes;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: Yes;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: Yes;
Welfare-to-Work: Yes;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: No;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: Yes.
State: Rhode Island;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): Yes;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: Yes;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: [A];
Welfare-to-Work: Yes;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: Yes;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: No.
State: South Dakota;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): N/A;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: No;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: No;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: No;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: No.
State: Tennessee;
State Workforce Investment Board: No;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): No;
One-Stop Center(s): No;
TANF: No;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: No;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: No;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: No.
State: Texas;
State Workforce Investment Board: No;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): No;
One-Stop Center(s): [A];
TANF: No;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: No;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: No;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: No.
State: Washington;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): [A];
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: Yes;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: No;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: No;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: No.
State: Wyoming;
State Workforce Investment Board: Yes;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): N/A;
One-Stop Center(s): Yes;
TANF: Yes;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: No;
Welfare-to-Work: No;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: No;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: Yes.
State: Totals;
State Workforce Investment Board: 17;
Local Workforce Investment Board(s): 11;
One-Stop Center(s): 19;
TANF: 10;
H1-B Technical Skills Grants: 3;
Welfare-to-Work: 7;
Department of Education, Employment, & Training Programs: 8;
Other Federal Employment & Training Programs: 9.
Source: GAO's survey of states that use employer taxes to fund their
own workforce programs.
Notes: All 23 states that reported having these programs responded to
the survey questions regarding coordination with state workforce
investment boards, TANF, other federal employment and training
programs, Department of Education employment and training programs,
and the Welfare-to-Work program.
In addition, 22 states responded to the survey questions regarding
coordination with one-stop centers and the H1-B program, while 20
states responded to the question regarding coordination with local
workforce investment boards.
N/A signifies not applicable and is listed for Del, N.H., S.Dak., and
Wyo. These are states that have a single workforce investment board,
which functions as both the state and local board.
The Welfare-to-Work program is a mandated partner of the one-stop
centers. While all states that reported coordinating with the Welfare-
to-Work program also reported coordinating with a one-stop center, not
all states that reported coordinating with a one-stop center also
reported coordinating with the Welfare-to-Work program. States had the
option to list multiple programs under both the "Department of
Education Employment and Training" category and the "Other Federal
Employment and Training" category. For the "Department of Education"
category, states noted programs such as Adult Education and Literacy,
and Vocational Education. For the "Other Federal Employment and
Training" category, programs ranged from Veterans' Employment and
Training Service to Job Corps. Both the "Department of Education"
category and the "Other Federal Employment and Training" category
included some programs that are mandated one-stop partners.
[A] Denotes that a state did not respond to this question.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Assessment Approaches Used in 2002, as Reported by States:
State: Alabama;
Frequency: Monthly;
Scope: Program;
Evaluator: In-house program staff.
State: California;
Frequency: Quarterly, annually and as contracts are completed;
Scope: Program and contracts;
Evaluator: In-house program staff and external evaluators.
State: Delaware;
Frequency: Quarterly;
Scope: Program and contracts;
Evaluator: In-house program staff and contract recipient staff.
State: Hawaii;
Frequency: Quarterly;
Scope: Contract;
Evaluator: In- house program staff and contract recipient staff.
State: Idaho;
Frequency: Monthly;
Scope: Program and contracts;
Evaluator: In-house program staff and contract recipient staff.
State: Indiana;
Frequency: Quarterly;
Scope: Contract;
Evaluator: External evaluators.
State: Kansas;
Frequency: As contracts are completed;
Scope: Program;
Evaluator: In-house program staff.
State: Louisiana;
Frequency: Quarterly, annually and as contracts are completed;
Scope: Program and contracts;
Evaluator: In-house program staff and contract recipient staff.
State: Massachusetts;
Frequency: As contracts are completed;
Scope: Program and contracts;
Evaluator: External evaluators and contract recipient staff.
State: Michigan;
Frequency: Annually;
Scope: a;
Evaluator: In-house program staff.
State: Montana;
Frequency: As contracts are completed;
Scope: Program and contracts;
Evaluator: In-house program staff.
State: Nebraska;
Frequency: As contracts are completed;
Scope: Program and contracts;
Evaluator: In-house program staff, external evaluators and contract
recipient staff.
State: Nevada;
Frequency: Monthly;
Scope: Program;
Evaluator: In-house program staff.
State: New Hampshire;
Frequency: As contracts are completed;
Scope: Contract;
Evaluator: In-house program staff and contract recipient staff.
State: New Jersey[B];
Frequency: Not available;
Scope: Not available;
Evaluator: Not available.
State: New York;
Frequency: Monthly;
Scope: Program;
Evaluator: In- house program staff.
State: Oregon;
Frequency: Annually and monthly;
Scope: Program;
Evaluator: In-house program staff.
State: Rhode Island;
Frequency: Annually;
Scope: Contract;
Evaluator: In-house program staff and contract recipient staff.
State: South Dakota;
Frequency: As contracts are completed;
Scope: Contract;
Evaluator: In-house program staff and contract recipient staff.
State: Tennessee;
Frequency: As contracts are completed;
Scope: Contract;
Evaluator: In-house program staff, external evaluators, and contract
recipient staff.
State: Texas;
Frequency: As contracts are completed;
Scope: Program and contracts;
Evaluator: In-house program staff and contract recipient staff.
State: Washington;
Frequency: Quarterly;
Scope: Program;
Evaluator: In- house program staff.
State: Wyoming;
Frequency: Quarterly;
Scope: Program and contracts;
Evaluator: In-house program staff.
Source: GAO's survey of states that use employer taxes to fund their
own workforce programs.
[A] Michigan's performance assessments were conducted against agreed
upon goals and objectives for each of the program's local areas.
[B] New Jersey is the only state that reported it did not regularly
assess its program in 2002.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI Indicators Used in State Assessments:
State: Alabama;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome- oriented: No.
State: California;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome-oriented: Yes.
State: Delaware;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Not available;
Indicators: Outcome-oriented: Not available.
State: Hawaii;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome- oriented: No.
State: Idaho;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome- oriented: Yes.
State: Indiana;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome- oriented: Yes.
State: Kansas;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome- oriented: Yes.
State: Louisiana;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome-oriented: Yes.
State: Massachusetts;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome-oriented: Yes.
State: Michigan;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Not available;
Indicators: Outcome-oriented: Not available.
State: Montana;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome- oriented: Yes.
State: Nebraska;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome- oriented: Yes.
State: Nevada;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome- oriented: Yes.
State: New Hampshire;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome-oriented: No.
State: New Jersey;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome-oriented: Yes.
State: New York;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome- oriented: Yes.
State: Oregon;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome- oriented: Yes.
State: Rhode Island;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Not available;
Indicators: Outcome-oriented: Not available.
State: South Dakota;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome-oriented: Yes.
State: Tennessee;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Not available;
Indicators: Outcome-oriented: Not available.
State: Texas;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome- oriented: No.
State: Washington;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Not available;
Indicators: Outcome-oriented: Not available.
State: Wyoming;
Indicators: Process-oriented: Yes;
Indicators: Outcome- oriented: Yes.
Source: GAO's content analysis of assessments provided.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Joan Mahagan (617) 788-0521:
Melissa Emrey-Arras (617) 788-0534:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Irene J. Barnett and Holly C. Ciampi made significant contributions to
this report, in all aspects of the work throughout the assignment. In
addition, Debra Waterstone and Shirley Hwang contributed to the
administration of our survey of state programs and Kevin Murphy
assisted in the initial planning of the assignment. Avrum Ashery,
Michele Fejfar, Alison Martin, Corinna Nicolaou, Audrey Ruge, Daniel
Schwimer, and Shana Wallace provided key technical assistance.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Dixon, K.A., Duke Storen, and Carl E. Van Horn. John J. Heldrich
Center for Workforce Development, Rutgers University, Standing on Shaky
Ground: Employers Sharply Concerned in Aftermath of Recession and
Terror, (New Jersey, February 2002).
[2] 2002 is used throughout this report and covers the time period
defined as state fiscal year 2002, as reported by states. (For a
complete description of the time periods reported by states for state
fiscal year 2002, see app. I.)
[3] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Multiple Employment and
Training Programs: Funding and Performance Measures for Major Programs,
GAO-03-589 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 18, 2003).
[4] NASWA State Supplemental Funding Survey - Estimated Data for 2002.
[5] Regional Technology Solutions, A Comprehensive Look at State-
Funded, Employer-Focused Job Training Programs National Governors'
Association, Center for Best Practices (Washington, D.C.: 1999).
[6] ASTD, State of the Industry: ASTD's Annual Review of Trends in
Employer-Provided Training in the United States (February 2002).
[7] U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,
The Five-Year Strategic Plan for Pilots, Demonstrations Research and
Evaluations July 2000-June 2005.
[8] In addition, 1 state reported that employer tax revenues did not
completely fund its program, but did not specify the portion of its
program budget that was funded by employer tax revenues.
[9] Prior to the passage of federal workforce initiatives like TANF in
1996 and the WIA in 1998, states generally did not use federal funds
for employed worker training, because most federally funded services
were not primarily intended for employed workers.
[10] In areas where adult WIA funds are limited, priority for in-depth
services, such as training, must be given to recipients of public
assistance and other low-income individuals.
[11] U.S. General Accounting Office, 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.: Feb. 14, 2003).
[12] By way of comparison, the 23 states with employment placement and
training programs funded by employer taxes received $1.15 billion in
WIA adult and dislocated worker allocations in 2002.
[13] Survey data capture the number of individuals that were provided
employment placement and training services. However, the data do not
describe the extent to which some individuals may have received both
employment placement and training services. This does not affect our
discussion about the total amount of people that received each service.
[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, 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.: Feb. 14, 2003).
[15] As noted previously, survey data capture the number of individuals
that were provided employment placement and training services. However,
the data do not describe the extent to which some individuals may have
received both employment placement and training services. This does not
affect our discussion about the total amount of people that received
each service.
[16] For a detailed review of each state's assessment approach,
including the frequency, scope, and conductors of their assessments,
see app. V.
[17] While New Jersey's most recent evaluation was included in our
analysis of state assessments, New Jersey is the only state that
reported it did not regularly assess its program in 2002. The
evaluation from New Jersey is based on data collected between 1994 and
2001.
[18] For a detailed review of the indicators used in state assessments,
see app. VI.
[19] When we surveyed states, we asked if they provided employment
placement and training services independent of the federal workforce
system in 2002.
[20] We asked states if they collaborated with federally funded
workforce programs in 2002. We use the term coordinate in place of
collaborate throughout this report.
[21] Nineteen states reported that their state fiscal year 2002 covered
July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002; 2 states reported October 1, 2001 to
September 30, 2002; 1 state reported September 1, 2001 to August 31,
2002; and 1 state reported April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003. When we
refer to 2002 throughout this report, we mean state fiscal year 2002,
as reported by states.
[22] Washington, D.C., did not report using employer taxes to fund
their own employment placement and training program. While Puerto Rico
did report using employer taxes to fund its own employment placement
and training program, Puerto Rico did not respond to our follow-up
survey.
[23] Two states reported that they did not know if their employment
placement and training program received the largest portion of employer
taxes collected in their respective state.
[24] Although Delaware's program began in 1986, a separate survey of
Delaware's workforce investment board was unnecessary because the
state's employer-funded program also functions as Delaware's only
workforce investment board. All coordination questions in our workforce
investment board survey were answered by an official from Delaware in
our survey of employer-funded state employment placement and training
programs.
[25] We obtained additional assessments while conducting our
preliminary research on employer tax-funded state employment placement
and training programs.
[26] Puerto Rico also reported using employer tax revenues to fund its
own program; however, Puerto Rico did not respond to our follow-up
survey.
[27] As previously noted, although Delaware's program began in 1986, a
separate survey of Delaware's workforce investment board was
unnecessary because the state's employer-funded program also functions
as its only workforce investment board. All coordination questions in
our workforce investment board survey were answered by an official from
Delaware in our survey of employer-funded state employment placement
and training programs.
[28] Representatives from Oregon's state workforce investment board did
not respond to our survey request.
[29] The remaining 5 states did not share their assessments for a
variety of reasons. For example, some states did not have evaluations
of their program exclusive of assessments of the federal workforce
system, and others did not have evaluations that assessed the program
as a whole.
[30] Rossi, Peter H., and Howard E. Freeman. Evaluation: A Systematic
Approach, 5th ed. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 1993.
[31] McBurney, Donald H. Research Methods, 3rd ed. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1994.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to 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. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
