National Emergency Grants
Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant Awards and Improve Data Gao ID: GAO-04-496 April 16, 2004The Department of Labor (Labor) awards national emergency grants to states and local areas to provide assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of major economic dislocations or disasters. Most grants awarded are regular grants to assist workers affected by plant closings or mass layoffs. Questions have been raised about whether grant funds are getting to states and local areas quickly enough. GAO was asked to assess the effectiveness of the process for awarding national emergency grants, whether Labor is planning changes that will improve the grant award process, and what is known about how grant funds are used.
Labor does not award most national emergency grants in a timely manner, and as a result, services to workers have been delayed, interrupted, or denied. Labor's goal is to make award decisions within 30 calendar days of receiving a complete application. However, nearly 90 percent of regular grants took longer than 30 days to award. On average, Labor took 92 days to award regular grants. For grants disbursed in more than one payment, Labor took on average 83 days to award the additional increments. Twenty-five of 38 states responding to our survey reported that because of grant award delays, local areas had to delay or deny services to workers. Labor is taking some steps, such as implementing an electronic system to better manage its award process and incorporating its 30-day goal in new guidelines, that may improve the timeliness of grant awards. However, some weaknesses still remain in Labor's planned changes that could prevent Labor from accurately assessing how long it takes to make grant awards and incremental payments. For example, Labor plans to stop counting the days elapsed if it finds problems with an application, and Labor's proposed guidelines do not establish a timeliness goal for incremental payments. Little is known on a national level about how national emergency grant funds are used because of weaknesses in two primary data sources. Because of the lack of clear guidance, states report inconsistent data in progress reports, and some states have not reported data on national emergency grants to a national database covering Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs. To address these problems, Labor is implementing a standardized electronic form for grantees to submit progress reports, issued guidance requiring states to submit data on national emergency grant participants to the national WIA database, and checked states' latest submissions to identify if data were missing. However, Labor's guidance still is not sufficiently clear to ensure that states will report data in progress reports consistently, and Labor does not have specific plans to continue checking states' data submissions to ensure that data are complete.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-04-496, National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant Awards and Improve Data
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-496
entitled 'National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to
Improve Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite
Grant Awards and Improve Data' which was released on May 03, 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:
April 2004:
NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANTS:
Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve Award Process, but Further
Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant Awards and Improve Data:
GAO-04-496:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-496, a report to Congressional Requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Labor (Labor) awards national emergency grants to
states and local areas to provide employment and training assistance to
workers whose jobs were lost because of major economic dislocations or
disrupted by major disasters. Most grants awarded are regular grants to
assist workers affected by plant closings or mass layoffs. However,
questions have been raised about whether grant funds are getting to
states and local areas quickly enough. GAO was asked to assess the
effectiveness of the process for awarding national emergency grants,
whether Labor is planning changes that will improve the grant award
process, and what is known about how grant funds are used.
What GAO Found:
Labor does not award most national emergency grants in a timely manner,
and as a result, services to workers have been delayed, interrupted, or
denied. Labor‘s goal is to make award decisions within 30 calendar days
of receiving an application. However, nearly 90 percent of regular
grants took longer than 30 days to award. On average, Labor took 92
days to award regular grants. For grants disbursed in more than one
payment, Labor took on average 83 days to award the additional
increments. Twenty-five of 38 states responding to our survey reported
that because of delays in receiving regular grant funds, local areas
had to delay or deny services to workers.
Labor is taking some steps, such as implementing an electronic system
to better manage its award process and incorporating its 30-day goal in
new guidelines, that may improve the timeliness of grant awards.
However, some weaknesses still remain in Labor‘s planned changes that
could prevent Labor from accurately assessing how long it takes to make
grant awards and incremental payments. For example, Labor plans to stop
counting the days elapsed if it finds major problems with an
application and Labor‘s proposed guidelines do not establish a
timeliness goal for incremental payments.
Little is known on a national level about how national emergency grant
funds are used because of weaknesses in two primary data sources.
Because of the lack of clear guidance, states report inconsistent data
in progress reports and some states have not reported data on national
emergency grants to a national database covering Workforce Investment
Act (WIA) programs. To address these problems, Labor is implementing a
standardized electronic form for grantees to submit progress reports,
issued guidance requiring states to submit data on national emergency
grant participants to the national WIA database, and checked states‘
latest submissions to identify if data were missing. However, Labor‘s
guidance still is not sufficiently clear to ensure that states will
report data in progress reports consistently and Labor does not have
specific plans to continue checking states‘ data submissions to ensure
that data are complete.
Percentage of Regular Grants Awarded during Program Years 2000-2002
within Specified Time Frames:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
We are recommending that Labor set goals for awarding grants and
incremental payments that include the entire award process, and track
how long it takes for all steps of the process. Finally, Labor should
clarify guidance to states on submitting national emergency grant data
in progress reports and ensure that grantees submit data to the
national participant database.
In its comments, Labor disagreed with our conclusions and methodology.
We conducted a complete review of Labor‘s grant award process for a
3-year period, surveyed states, and assessed current and proposed
policies to reach our conclusions. While Labor is making changes to the
grant award process, we identified additional actions needed.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-496.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at (202)
512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Delays in Grant Awards Hampered Services to Dislocated Workers:
Labor Has Taken Steps to Improve the Grant Award Process, but
Additional Actions are Needed:
Little Is Known about How Grant Funds Are Used because of Weaknesses in
Data Collection:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Summary of Funds Awarded for Regular, Disaster, and Dual
Enrollment Grants for Program Years 2000-2002:
Appendix III: Average Number of Days Regular Grants Were Awarded by
State:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Average Time to Award Grants by Quarter in Which Application
Was Received during Program Years 2000-2002:
Table 2: Information Contained in Progress Reports from 13 States:
Table 3: Comparison of State's PY2001 WIASRD National Emergency Grant
Participant Records with Grants Received in PY2000:
Table 4: Number of National Emergency Grants Awarded and Used in GAO
Analysis:
Table 5: Listing of 39 States Surveyed That Were Awarded a Regular
National Emergency Grant during Program Years 2000 through 2002:
Figures:
Figure 1: Funding Reserved from the Dislocated Worker Allotment for the
Secretary of Labor:
Figure 2: Distribution of National Emergency Grant Funds for Regular,
Disaster, and Dual Enrollment Grants from July 1, 2000, to June 30,
2003:
Figure 3: Percentage of Grants Awarded and Funds Awarded for Program
Years 2000-2002 by Type of Grant:
Figure 4: Difference between How GAO and Labor Track the Grant Award
Process:
Figure 5: Percentage of Regular Grants Awarded during Program Years
2000-2002 within Specified Time Frames:
Figure 6: Percentage of Regular Grant Applications and Awards by
Quarter during Program Years 2000-2002:
Figure 7: Percentage of Regular Grant Applications and Awards by Month
during Program Years 2000-2002:
Figure 8: Percentage of Regular Grant Incremental Payments Awarded
within Specified Time Frames:
Figure 9: Average Number of Days to Award Regular Grants to States with
at Least Five Grants during Program Years 2000-2002:
Figure 10: New Process for Awarding National Emergency Grants and
Number of Days Allowed in Each Step:
Abbreviations:
JTPA: Job Training Partnership Act:
OIG: Department of Labor Office of Inspector General:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act
WIASRD: Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 30, 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:
Between 2000 and 2002, almost 60,000 mass layoffs of 50 or more workers
occurred resulting in nearly 7 million workers losing their jobs. The
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 authorizes the Department of
Labor (Labor) to award national emergency grants to states and local
areas to provide employment and training assistance to workers whose
jobs were lost because of major economic dislocations, such as plant
closures, or by major disasters, such as floods and hurricanes.
Grantees, typically the state or local agency responsible for
administering WIA, apply for national emergency grants when their
dislocated worker formula funds are insufficient to assist the affected
workers. Between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003, Labor awarded about
$600 million in national emergency grants. The majority of these funds
were used for grants to provide assistance, called regular grants, to
workers who lost their jobs because of layoffs or plant closures.
National emergency grants can be funded in whole or in increments. For
grants that are funded incrementally, grantees are required to submit
supplemental information to request additional payments. Although
national emergency grants are intended to be a timely response to
unexpected events, questions arose during congressional hearings in
April 2003 about whether national emergency grant funds were getting to
states and local areas quickly enough to help workers when they needed
them the most.
In November 2003, we reported that services to dislocated workers were
being affected because of delays in Labor's awarding of national
emergency grants.[Footnote 1] We also found that Labor was initiating
actions to improve the grant award process. Because of your continued
interest in Labor's process for awarding national emergency grants, you
asked us to determine (1) the effectiveness of the overall process for
awarding national emergency grant funds, (2) whether the changes being
implemented by Labor will improve the grant award process, and (3) what
is known about how grant funds are being used. To respond to these
questions, we interviewed Labor officials at both headquarters and
regional offices, reviewed Labor files for all grants awarded during
program years 2000 through 2002, and surveyed officials in the 39
states that had received at least one regular national emergency grant
during that period.[Footnote 2] We received responses from 38 states.
We also reviewed Labor's two data sources that contain information on
use of national emergency grants. We conducted our work from March 2003
to March 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards (see app. I for a detailed discussion of our scope and
methodology).
Results in Brief:
Labor's grant process is not as effective as it could be because most
grants are not awarded in a timely manner, and as a result, services to
workers have been delayed, interrupted, or denied. Labor's goal is to
make award decisions about national emergency grants within 30 calendar
days of receiving a complete application. However, nearly 90 percent of
the regular grants took longer than 30 days to award. On average, Labor
took 92 days, from the receipt of the application, to send award
letters for regular grants. The amount of time it took for grant awards
was also tied to the time of year: Labor awarded 60 percent of the
regular grants during the last 3 months of their program year, and most
of these were made in the final month. In addition, for regular grants
disbursed in more than one payment, it took an average of 83 days from
the time additional funds were requested to the time the incremental
payment was made. Because of the lag in grant awards, some problems
arose in providing services. Twenty-five of the 38 states responding to
our survey reported that local areas had to deny or delay services to
laid-off workers because of delays in receiving funds. For example,
delays in receiving funds caused a local area in Nevada to cancel
training for over 300 workers, and a local area in Massachusetts to
place workers on waiting lists for 3 to 4 months before receiving
training.
Labor is taking steps that may improve the timeliness with which grants
are awarded, but additional actions are needed to better manage the
grant award process. Labor plans to implement an electronic system by
July 1, 2004, that will enable states to apply for grants online and
will automatically check applications for missing or inconsistent
information. The electronic system is also designed to help Labor
manage its grant award process by automatically assigning applications
to staff for review and tracking the date they complete their review.
In addition, in guidance issued in January 2004, Labor clarified its
application requirements. Finally, Labor plans to issue guidelines that
document a goal of making award decisions within 30 business days.
However, some weaknesses still remain in Labor's planned changes that
could prevent Labor from accurately assessing how long it takes to make
grant awards and incremental payments. In assessing its progress toward
meeting its timeliness goal, Labor plans to stop counting the days
elapsed toward its 30-day goal if it finds problems with an
application. In addition, Labor's timeliness goal only includes the
days up to an award decision, leaving the agency unable to determine if
delays occur in steps of the process leading up to issuance of the
award letter. Furthermore, the proposed guidelines do not specify a
goal for how long Labor should take to make incremental payments.
Little is known on a national level about how national emergency grant
funds are used because of weaknesses in two primary data sources, and
although Labor is taking some steps to improve the data collected,
these steps may not go far enough to ensure the data's reliability.
Largely because of a lack of clear guidance, data in national emergency
grant progress reports that states are required to submit to Labor are
inconsistent, and data in a national participant database covering
Workforce Investment Act programs are incomplete and unverified. Labor
has not issued guidance under the Workforce Investment Act on
submitting national emergency grant progress reports, and as a result,
not all states reported the same data elements. For example, five
states from which we received sample reports included the number of
participants enrolled in intensive services, such as case management,
while eight did not. Regarding Labor's national participant database,
the guidance has not been clear about whether states are required to
submit data on national emergency grants, and Labor has not ensured the
completeness and accuracy of data that are submitted. To address these
weaknesses, Labor is making several improvements to the data sources.
To improve the consistency of progress reports, Labor is planning to
implement by July 1, 2004, a standardized electronic form on which
states will be required to submit their reports. However, Labor has not
issued detailed guidance to ensure that states will interpret data
elements, such as the number of participants who have entered
employment, consistently. To improve the national participant database,
Labor is planning to implement a data validation program to ensure the
accuracy of state-reported data on national emergency grant
participants, has issued guidance to clarify the requirement that
national emergency grant data must be submitted, and checked states'
latest submissions to identify whether their data on national emergency
grants were complete. However, Labor does not currently have specific
plans to continue checking states' submissions to ensure completeness
of the data.
In order to better manage the national emergency grant award process,
we are recommending that Labor set goals for awarding grants, as well
as for providing incremental payments, that include the entire process
from when a grant application is received to the time that the grant
award is issued. In addition, we are recommending that Labor
continuously track how long it takes for all components of the grant
award process. Finally, to ensure that reported information on national
emergency grants is reliable, we are recommending that Labor clarify
guidance to states on submitting national emergency grant data in
progress reports and ensure that grantees submit data to the national
participant database. In its comments, Labor took issue with the
report's methodology, said it believes that the report makes assertions
not supported by empirical evidence, and disagreed with our
conclusions. Labor also listed reforms that are under way or have been
implemented, including business process mapping, an electronic
application tool, policy guidance, regional forums, and technical
assistance to states. We disagree with Labor's characterization. Our
analysis looked at the complete application process from a grantee's
perspective. We reviewed files for every regular grant that was awarded
between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003, for which complete information
was available and compared the date that Labor received the application
to the date Labor issued an award letter to the grantee. In addition,
our conclusions about the weaknesses in the improvements being
undertaken in the grant award process are based upon Labor's proposed
guidelines and discussions with Labor officials. Finally, our report
acknowledges the efforts listed by Labor in its comments.
Background:
WIA specifies separate funding streams for each of the act's main
client groups--adults, youths, and dislocated workers. A dislocated
worker is an individual who (1) has been terminated or laid off, or who
has received a notice of termination or layoff, from employment; is
eligible for or has exhausted entitlement to unemployment insurance; or
who is not eligible for unemployment insurance but has been employed
for a sufficient duration to demonstrate attachment to the workforce
and who is unlikely to return to his or her previous industry or
occupation; (2) has been terminated or laid off, or who has received a
notice of termination or layoff, from employment as a result of any
permanent plant closure of, or substantial layoff at, a plant,
facility, or enterprise; (3) was self-employed but is unemployed as a
result of general economic conditions in the community in which the
individual resides or because of natural disasters; or (4) is a
displaced homemaker.[Footnote 3]
Under WIA, dislocated workers can receive three levels of service--
core, intensive, and training. Core services include job search and
placement assistance, the provision of labor market information, and
preliminary assessment of skills and needs. These services are
available to anyone seeking such assistance, whether or not that person
is a dislocated worker. Intensive services are provided to dislocated
workers needing additional services to find a job. Intensive services
include comprehensive assessments, development of an individual
employment plan, case management, and short-term prevocational
services.[Footnote 4] Dislocated workers can also receive training
services, including occupational skills training, on-the-job training,
skill upgrading, and entrepreneurial training.
The Secretary of Labor retains 20 percent of dislocated worker funds in
a national reserve account to be used for national emergency grants,
demonstrations, and technical assistance and allots the remaining funds
to each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
according to a specific formula. In a previous report, GAO identified
several issues with the formula to allocate dislocated worker funds
that limit its ability to allocate funds to states according to their
need.[Footnote 5] For example, one problem we identified is that the
formula allocates funds based on factors, such as the number of long-
term unemployed in each state, that are not clearly aligned with the
program's target population. During program years 2000-2002, Labor was
allotted about $4.7 billion for dislocated worker activities. For
program year 2003, approximately $1.4 billion was allotted for
dislocated worker activities, of which about $272 million was reserved
by the Secretary of Labor. Of the amount reserved by the Secretary in
any program year, not more than 10 percent can be used for
demonstrations and pilot projects relating to the employment and
training needs of dislocated workers. Such projects can include those
that promote self-employment, promote job creation, and avert
dislocations. In addition, not more than 5 percent can be used for
technical assistance to states that do not meet performance measures
established for dislocated worker activities. At least 85 percent of
the Secretary's 20 percent funds must be used for national emergency
grants (see fig.1).
Figure 1: Funding Reserved from the Dislocated Worker Allotment for the
Secretary of Labor:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
National emergency grant funds are used for several different types of
grants, including:
* Regular grants. These provide employment and training assistance to
workers who lost their jobs because of layoffs and plant closings.
* Disaster grants. These provide temporary employment to workers
affected by natural disasters and other catastrophic events.
* Dual enrollment grants. These provide supplemental assistance to
workers who have been certified by Labor to receive services under the
Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002. Workers eligible under
dual enrollment grants are typically workers who have lost their jobs
because of increased imports from, or shifts in production to, foreign
countries.
Grantees apply for national emergency grants when their dislocated
worker formula funds are insufficient to meet the needs of affected
workers. Entities that are eligible to receive regular national
emergency grants are:
* the designated state WIA program agency,
* a local workforce investment area agency,
* a consortium of local workforce investment boards for adjoining
areas, and:
* a designated organization receiving funds through the Native American
program provision of WIA.
For regular national emergency grants covering more than one state,
eligible grantees are limited to a consortium of local workforce
investment boards for adjoining local areas or a consortium of states.
For disaster and dual enrollment grants, eligible grantees are limited
to states. For national emergency grants awarded from program years
2000 to 2002, 241 grants were awarded to states and 6 grants were
awarded to local areas.
National emergency grants are discretionary awards by the Secretary of
Labor that are intended to temporarily expand service capacity at the
state and local levels by providing time-limited funding assistance in
response to major layoffs. National emergency grant funds may be used
to provide core, intensive, and training services.[Footnote 6] For
disaster-related projects, funds may be used for temporary employment
assistance on projects that provide food, clothing, and shelter, as
well as on projects that perform demolition, cleaning, repair,
renovation, and reconstruction. According to Labor, projects funded by
national emergency grants must be designed to achieve performance
outcomes that support the performance goal commitments by the Secretary
under the Government Performance and Results Act. Labor will provide
target performance levels for national emergency grant projects through
separate policy guidance. Beginning July 1, 2004, national emergency
grant projects will be subject to the common measures for employment
and training programs, including entered employment, job retention, and
earnings increase. Participants in temporary disaster projects are
expected to receive necessary assistance to return to the workforce.
Between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003 (covering program years 2000,
2001, and 2002), Labor distributed about $600 million from the
dislocated worker reserved funds for national emergency grants to 46
states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Federated States of
Micronesia (see fig. 2).[Footnote 7] California, Massachusetts, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin
received the largest amount of grant funds, at least $20 million each.
Figure 2: Distribution of National Emergency Grant Funds for Regular,
Disaster, and Dual Enrollment Grants from July 1, 2000, to June 30,
2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Appendix II lists the amount of funds Labor distributed to each state
for regular, disaster, and dual enrollment national emergency grants
between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003. Nearly two-thirds of the 247
grants awarded and about 60 percent of the funds awarded were for
regular grants (see fig. 3). According to Labor officials, no grant
applications received between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003 are still
pending.
Figure 3: Percentage of Grants Awarded and Funds Awarded for Program
Years 2000-2002 by Type of Grant:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In any program year, the Secretary can only award national emergency
grants from funds available for that program year. That is, funds
reserved for national emergency grants in program year 2002 must be
awarded by June 30, 2003--the last day of program year 2002.
The current system for submission and review of grant applications is
manual and paper-based. States and local areas submit an application
via mail or fax. Each national emergency grant application generally
contains information on key aspects of the proposed project, such as
amount of funds requested, planned number of participants, planned
starting and end dates, planned expenditures by type of program
activity, and expected performance outcomes, including how many
participants they believe will become employed and what they believe
their new wages will be. Labor officials review the application and
draft a decision memorandum that contains their recommendation as to
whether the grant should be awarded and, if so, at what amount. The
decision memorandum is forwarded to the Secretary, who makes the final
award decision. After the Secretary's award decision, Labor notifies
the appropriate congressional office and issues the award letter to the
grantee. National emergency grant awards can be disbursed in a single
payment or in increments. In most cases, the initial increment will be
for six months to enable a project to achieve full enrollment. For
grants disbursed in more than one payment, grantees are required to
submit supplemental information along with their requests for future
incremental payments. This information generally includes the actual
number of participants, performance outcomes, and expenditures.
Grantees provide information to Labor on their use of grant funds
through periodic progress reports.[Footnote 8] Grantees submit periodic
progress reports on their use of national emergency grant funds to
Labor regional offices that monitor and oversee the grants. Grantees
are required to submit the reports on a quarterly basis for regular and
dual enrollment grants and on a biweekly basis for disaster grants.
Progress reports generally contain information on the number of
participants who registered for the program and received various
services. They also contain the number of participants who entered
employment, which Labor uses to assess grantees' performance.
States are required annually to submit to a national database, called
the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD),
information on WIA participants who have left the program, including
those who have left national emergency grant--funded programs. The
WIASRD contains information on the types of services that each WIA
participant receives, such as intensive or training services. For
participants that received training, the WIASRD also contains
information on the types of training activities they participated in,
such as on-the-job training, adult education or basic literacy
activities, or occupational skills training.
Delays in Grant Awards Hampered Services to Dislocated Workers:
Labor's grant process is not as effective as it could be because most
grants are not awarded in a timely manner, and as a result, services to
workers in some states have been delayed, interrupted, or denied.
During program years 2000-2002, Labor's goal was to approve national
emergency grants within 30 calendar days of receiving a complete
application. On average, 92 days elapsed between the date Labor
received a regular national emergency grant application and the date
the award letter was signed. Labor was more likely to award grants
toward the end of the program year, with nearly 40 percent of the grant
awards made in the final month. Twenty-five states of the 38 states
responding to our survey reported that as a result of delays in
receiving grant funds, services to dislocated workers were delayed,
interrupted, or denied.
Labor's Counting toward Timeliness Goal Does Not Reflect the Full Grant
Award Process:
The way Labor measures its progress toward meeting its timeliness goal
does not reflect the full process for awarding national emergency
grants. During program years 2000-2002, Labor's goal was to approve
national emergency grants within 30 calendar days of receiving a
"complete" application. Labor contends that states, in their haste,
often submit applications that require additional work and that the
request for funds cannot be processed until shortcomings are addressed.
As a result, states may turn in their applications several times before
Labor starts counting the days elapsed toward meeting its timeliness
goal. Labor ends its counting once the Secretary approves the grant,
although additional time is required to notify the appropriate
congressional office and issue the award letter. For our analysis, we
began counting on the first day Labor received a state's application
and continued even if states had to make revisions for the application
to be considered complete by Labor. We did not stop counting until
award letters were sent. Our counting more accurately reflects the
grantee's perspective: It begins at the first request for funds and
ends at the point that funds can be obligated. Figure 4 compares the
points at which Labor starts and stops counting the days elapsed toward
meeting its 30-day goal and the points at which GAO started and stopped
counting the days in our analysis.
Figure 4: Difference between How GAO and Labor Track the Grant Award
Process:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Most Grant Awards Took Longer than 30 Days:
We found that, on average, Labor took 92 days from the time an
application was received to send a grant award letter. Nearly 90
percent of the regular grants awarded from July 1, 2000, to June 30,
2003 took more than 30 days to award. [Footnote 9] Approximately 11
percent of the regular grants awarded during program years 2000-2002
took 30 or fewer days to award, whereas nearly half took more than 90
days (see fig. 5).
Figure 5: Percentage of Regular Grants Awarded during Program Years
2000-2002 within Specified Time Frames:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Although 159 regular grants were awarded between July 1, 2000,
and June 30, 2003, this information is based upon our review and
analysis of 141 grants for which complete information was available.
[End of figure]
Labor took less time to award disaster and dual enrollment grants than
it did to award regular grants. Dual enrollment grants, which represent
about a third of the funds awarded during program years 2000-2002, took
an average of 20 days to award, and disaster grants, which represent
less than 10 percent of the funds awarded, took an average of 48
days.[Footnote 10]
Grant Applications Submitted Early in the Program Year Took Longer to
Award, and Most Grants Were Awarded Later in the Year:
The amount of time Labor took to award regular grants appeared to be
related to the quarter in which the application was received. For
example, regular grant applications received in the first quarter of a
program year took longer to award than applications received in the
second, third, and fourth quarters (see table 1).
Table 1: Average Time to Award Grants by Quarter in Which Application
Was Received during Program Years 2000-2002:
Quarter application was received: First;
Average number of days to award grant: 111.
Quarter application was received: Second;
Average number of days to award grant: 109.
Quarter application was received: Third;
Average number of days to award grant: 100.
Quarter application was received: Fourth;
Average number of days to award grant: 58.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor grant awards during program years 2000
through 2002.
[End of table]
Labor awards most of the regular grants later in the year. Nearly 60
percent of all regular grants were awarded in the fourth quarter of the
program year, representing nearly two-thirds of the regular grant funds
awarded. This trend exists despite the fact that about the same
proportion of applications are received in the second, third, and
fourth quarters of the program year: Over 30 percent of the
applications were submitted during the second quarter of the program
year, and about 27 percent were submitted in the third and fourth
quarters (see fig. 6).
Figure 6: Percentage of Regular Grant Applications and Awards by
Quarter during Program Years 2000-2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Although applications were received at a steady rate throughout the
last three quarters of the program year, about 40 percent of the
regular grants were awarded in June, the final month of the program
year, representing about one-half of the regular grant funds awarded.
Moreover, the percentage of applications submitted by month during the
program year did not significantly increase as the year went on, with
October (the fourth month of the program year), being the month when
the largest percentage of applications was submitted (see fig. 7).
Figure 7: Percentage of Regular Grant Applications and Awards by Month
during Program Years 2000-2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
June was the most prevalent month for awarding other types of grants as
well. About 42 percent of the disaster grants and 90 percent of the
dual enrollment grants were awarded in the last month of the program
year. Award dates were more closely linked to application dates for
dual enrollment grants because, according to Labor officials, grantees
apply for these grants near the end of the program year, when Trade Act
funds become exhausted. The vast majority (92 percent) of the dual
enrollment applications were submitted in the last two months of the
program year.
Incremental Payments Also Took Longer than 30 Days to Award:
Approximately 80 percent of the incremental payments made during
program years 2000-2002 took longer than 30 days for Labor to award
(see fig. 8).[Footnote 11] On average, Labor took 83 days to award
incremental payments, which is 9 days quicker than the average number
of days Labor took to make initial regular grant awards. Labor
officials attributed delays to grantees submitting incomplete requests
that require additional work. On the other hand, some state officials
said that they were unclear about the requirements for requesting an
incremental payment because of lack of guidelines on how to submit a
request. During program years 2000-2002, Labor awarded 43 incremental
payments totaling about $84 million. According to Labor, grantees
should expect that all grant awards will be funded incrementally.
Figure 8: Percentage of Regular Grant Incremental Payments Awarded
within Specified Time Frames:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Delays Hindered States' Abilities to Serve Workers:
Thirty-three of the 38 states that responded to our survey said that
the amount of time it took to receive regular grant funds was a major
problem. Eight of these states were awarded five or more regular grants
during program years 2000-2002, and Labor averaged between 51 and 103
days to award grants to these states (see fig. 9).
Figure 9: Average Number of Days to Award Regular Grants to States with
at Least Five Grants during Program Years 2000-2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Twenty-five states said that because of the delays in receiving grant
funds, local areas had to delay or deny services to dislocated workers.
In most of these states, the delays affected local areas' ability to
place dislocated workers in training. Twenty of these states reported
that local areas had to delay or cancel training for dislocated workers
because, while waiting for national emergency grant funds, they did not
have funds available to enroll workers in training. For example,
Massachusetts officials noted that workers in one local area were
placed on waiting lists for 3 to 4 months before they received
training. Similarly, Nevada officials reported that a local area
cancelled training for more than 300 workers because of a delay in
receiving grant funds. Six states also reported that local areas could
not provide intensive services, such as case management, to workers
because of delays in receiving grant funds. For example, Kentucky
reported that while waiting to receive national emergency grant funds,
local areas could only provide workers with core services and could not
provide workers with job training, career counseling, case management,
or supportive services, such as assistance with transportation and
child care.[Footnote 12]
Labor Has Taken Steps to Improve the Grant Award Process, but
Additional Actions are Needed:
Labor has taken steps that may improve the process for awarding
national emergency grants, but additional actions are needed to better
manage the grant award process. Labor is moving from a paper-based
system for reviewing grant applications to an electronic system that
will enable states or local areas to apply for grants on-line. Labor
has also documented its goal to make an award decision within 30
business days of receiving a complete application.[Footnote 13]
However, some weaknesses still remain in Labor's planned changes that
could prevent Labor from accurately assessing how long it takes to make
grant awards and incremental payments.
Labor's Actions Are a Step in the Right Direction:
Labor has made a number of changes intended to improve the efficiency
of the application process by helping applicants submit applications
that are as close to being complete as possible. Labor has clarified
its application requirements in guidance issued on January 26,
2004.[Footnote 14] In addition, Labor has conducted training for states
on providing an integrated service response for dislocated workers,
including training on the requirements for receiving national emergency
grants. Labor also plans to provide technical assistance and work with
states on an individual basis to help them fully integrate services
available to dislocated workers through the one-stop service delivery
system. Furthermore, Labor plans to implement a new electronic system
by July 1, 2004, that would allow applicants to submit applications
electronically. The new system will automatically check applications
for missing or inconsistent information, such as blanks that should be
filled in or numbers that do not add up correctly. If any problems are
found, the system notifies applicants. Only when the system no longer
finds problems with the application will it allow the application to go
forward. In doing so, the system ensures that each required field
contains information and that information in different fields is
consistent, but it cannot check the quality of the information
submitted.
The electronic system will also replace Labor's paper-based system for
managing the application review process. The electronic system will
count how many days have elapsed since the application was submitted
and track the progress of various steps of the review. Specifically,
the system:
* automatically assigns applications to staff for review within a day
of submission,
* reassigns an application to another staff person if the staff
originally assigned is not available,
* gives each staff a deadline for completing his or her part of the
review,
* tracks the date that staff complete their responsibilities,
* automatically transfers information from the application into the
decision memorandum, and:
* enables managers to check on the progress of the review, including
how long specific parts of the review are taking.
As part of a reengineering project, Labor contracted with IBM to review
Labor's grant award process. IBM reviewed Labor's current grant award
process as well as the new electronic system to determine whether any
further improvements would be needed.[Footnote 15] In addition, IBM is
planning to conduct further review of other areas such as staffing
levels, skills, and workflow patterns.
Finally, Labor is planning to issue guidelines that document its
timeliness goal. As stated in the proposed guidelines, the goal will be
to make a grant award decision within 30 business days of receiving a
complete application. These guidelines had not been issued as of April
6, 2004.
Additional Actions Needed to Better Manage Grant Award Process:
Some weaknesses still remain in Labor's planned changes that could
prevent Labor from accurately assessing how long it takes to make grant
awards and incremental payments. First, the way Labor has defined its
30--day goal allows the agency to stop counting the number of days
elapsed if it finds problems with the grant application.[Footnote 16]
For example, if Labor finds a major problem, such as with a planned
expenditure for a program activity, it will stop the electronic
system's counting of days elapsed and ask the state or local area to
revise the application. After the state or local area submits a revised
application, Labor will start the counting at day one (see fig. 10).
However, if Labor finds a minor problem with the application, such as
insufficient justification in the narrative explanation for the
proposed number of dislocated workers to be enrolled, it will stop the
counting and, once the state or local area submits a revised
application, will restart the counting from the day it left off.
Because of Labor's ability to stop its counting of days elapsed, its
tracking system may not accurately reflect the number of days it takes
Labor to award grants nor allow Labor to identify how long particular
steps in the process contribute to the amount of time it takes to award
grants.
Figure 10: New Process for Awarding National Emergency Grants and
Number of Days Allowed in Each Step:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
A second problem is that Labor's timeliness goal still only includes
the days up to the Secretary's award decision, leaving the agency
unable to identify delays that occur after the award decision. Labor's
proposed guidelines specify a goal to approve or disapprove
applications within 30 business days from receipt of a complete and
responsive application. As stated, the goal would not include the steps
between the Secretary's approval and the issuance of the award letter,
such as the notification of congressional offices of the award, the
preparation of the award letter, and the preparation for the
disbursement of funds. With some grants awarded in program years 2000
to 2002, 20 or more calendar days passed between the date the Secretary
approved the grant by signing the decision memorandum and the date
Labor issued the award letter to the grantee.[Footnote 17] For example,
for a grant awarded to Missouri, 34 days passed between the date the
Secretary signed the decision memorandum and the date the award letter
was sent. Such delays can interfere with a state or local area's
ability to take steps necessary to begin to provide services such as
entering into contracts with training providers or hiring staff.
A third weakness is that Labor's proposed guidelines do not establish a
timeliness goal for awarding incremental payments, despite stating that
most grants will be awarded incrementally. Labor has stated that the
amount of time to approve incremental payments should be no longer than
the time required to review the original application--30 business
days.[Footnote 18] However, this goal has not been formally documented
in the proposed guidelines. In addition, the electronic system does not
allow grantees to apply for incremental payments on-line, and it will
not track the progress of the review of requests for incremental
payments. Labor plans to use a manual process to track its progress
toward meeting its 30-day goal for incremental payments.
Little Is Known about How Grant Funds Are Used because of Weaknesses in
Data Collection:
Little is known on a national level about how national emergency grant
funds are used because of weaknesses in two data sources, and although
Labor is taking steps to improve the data collected, these steps may
not go far enough to ensure the data's reliability. Data in progress
reports submitted by grantees to Labor could not be analyzed on a
national level because the reports' data elements vary from grantee to
grantee and the information is not available electronically.
Furthermore, the reliability of information contained in Labor's
national database on participants served by WIA funds, including
national emergency grants, cannot be ensured because the data are
incomplete and unverified. Labor's steps to address some of these
issues may not go far enough to rectify data problems. For progress
reports, Labor has not issued detailed guidance to ensure that data
elements are defined consistently. In addition, although Labor has
checked states' most recent submissions to the national participant
database to identify whether data are missing, Labor does not have
specific plans to check states' future submissions to ensure that data
are complete.
Data Collected Is Inconsistent and Unreliable:
Neither of the two primary data sources on the national emergency grant
program--progress reports and WIASRD--can be used to provide accurate
national-level information on the use of national emergency grant
funds.[Footnote 19] Largely because of a lack of clear guidance,
grantees are not submitting reliable information to both data sources.
Data in progress reports cannot be summarized to provide a national
picture of how grant funds are used because not all states reported the
same data. Labor has not issued guidance under WIA on the submission of
national emergency grant progress reports, and as a result, the data
submitted in reports vary from grantee to grantee. For example, while
most of the 13 states that we obtained sample reports from provided
information on the number of people enrolled in training, only about
half reported the number enrolled in core and intensive services, and
just one reported expenditures by type of service (see table 2).
Table 2: Information Contained in Progress Reports from 13 States:
Date element: Enrollments in core services;
Number of states that provided information[A]: 7;
Number of states that did not provide information: 6.
Date element: Enrollments in intensive services;
Number of states that provided information[A]: 5;
Number of states that did not provide information: 8.
Date element: Enrollments in training services;
Number of states that provided information[A]: 11;
Number of states that did not provide information: 2.
Date element: Expenditures by types of services;
Number of states that provided information[A]: 1;
Number of states that did not provide information: 12.
Date element: Entered employment;
Number of states that provided information[A]: 12;
Number of states that did not provide information: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of progress reports provided by Labor regional
offices.
[A] This includes states that provided information in some but not all
cases.
[End of table]
In addition, grantees may interpret the data elements in different
ways. For example, according to Labor regional officials, states vary
in how they define "entered employment." Some states use the WIA
definition, which calculates entered employment using quarterly
unemployment insurance wage reports that may not be available until
several months after the person has started a job. Other states use the
definition under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program that
WIA replaced, which calculates the number using information gathered by
the caseworker at the time the person is placed in employment. A
grantee that uses the WIA definition may appear to place workers in
employment less effectively than a grantee that uses the JTPA
definition because the grantee using the WIA definition must wait
several months before reporting that a participant entered
employment.[Footnote 20] Furthermore, the data in progress reports are
not electronically available or stored in a central location because
Labor does not have an electronic system through which grantees can
submit the reports. Instead, grantees submit the reports to the
appropriate regional office by e--mail or as paper documents, making
analysis of the data cumbersome.
Labor's guidance is not as clear as it could be about whether states
are required to submit to WIASRD data on participants served with
national emergency grant funds. One part of the WIASRD reporting
instructions says that states are required to provide data for
participants who exited WIA Title I-B services, which are services
offered by the adult, dislocated worker, and youth formula funds
programs.[Footnote 21] A Labor official and a manager of the WIASRD
database stated that this part of the guidance could be interpreted by
states to mean that they are not required to submit data to WIASRD for
other programs, such as national emergency grants. In addition, some
Labor officials we spoke with believed that states were not required to
submit WIASRD data on all national emergency grant participants.
Either because the data were not submitted or were submitted
incorrectly, WIASRD does not contain data for all states that received
national emergency grants. The program year 2001 WIASRD contained no
data for five states that collectively received 16 grants in program
year 2000, constituting 23 percent of the grants awarded in that year
(see table 3). In addition, it contained few data for Rhode Island,
although a Rhode Island official said that 210 participants exited
national emergency grant programs in program year 2001.
Table 3: Comparison of State's PY2001 WIASRD National Emergency Grant
Participant Records with Grants Received in PY2000:
State: Alabama;
Number of national emergency grant participant records in program year
2001 WIASRD (7/1/01--6/30/02): 0;
Number of national emergency grants awarded in program year 2000
(7/1/00--6/30/01)[A]: 1.
State: New Jersey;
Number of national emergency grant participant records in program year
2001 WIASRD (7/1/01--6/30/02): 0;
Number of national emergency grants awarded in program year 2000
(7/1/00--6/30/ 01)[A]: 4.
State: Ohio;
Number of national emergency grant participant records in program year
2001 WIASRD (7/1/01--6/30/02): 0;
Number of national emergency grants awarded in program year 2000
(7/1/00--6/30/01)[A]: 6.
State: Rhode Island;
Number of national emergency grant participant records in program year
2001 WIASRD (7/1/01--6/30/02): 7;
Number of national emergency grants awarded in program year 2000
(7/1/00--6/30/ 01)[A]: 4.
State: Virginia;
Number of national emergency grant participant records in program year
2001 WIASRD (7/1/01--6/30/02): 0;
Number of national emergency grants awarded in program year 2000
(7/1/00--6/30/01)[A]: 1.
State: Wisconsin;
Number of national emergency grant participant records in program year
2001 WIASRD (7/1/01--6/30/02): 0;
Number of national emergency grants awarded in program year 2000
(7/1/00--6/30/ 01)[A]: 4.
Source: GAO analysis of the program year 2001 WIASRD and list of
program year 2000 grants provided by Labor.
[A] Includes incremental payments received from 7/1/00 to 6/30/01.
[End of table]
However, even if the data submitted to WIASRD on national emergency
grants were complete, questions about their accuracy would persist. In
its review of state-reported WIA performance data, Labor's Office of
Inspector General (OIG) concluded that little assurance exists that the
data are accurate or verifiable because of inadequate oversight of data
collection and management at the federal, state, and local
levels.[Footnote 22] A recent GAO report confirmed the OIG's
findings.[Footnote 23]
Labor Is Taking Actions to Improve Data:
Labor has developed a standard reporting form and electronic system for
national emergency grant progress reports and plans to implement these
changes in July 2004. Labor's proposed guidelines require grantees to
use a particular reporting form to submit information on a quarterly
basis on the number of participants receiving intensive services,
training, and other services, as well as expenditures on these various
services, the number of participants who exited the program, and the
number of participants who entered employment. A standard reporting
form is likely to increase the consistency of grantee-reported data by
ensuring that grantees submit information on the same data elements.
However, Labor has not yet issued guidance informing grantees how to
define data elements such as the number of participants who have
entered employment. Without common definitions, grantees may submit
inconsistent data based on their different interpretations of data
elements. In addition, Labor's electronic system for managing the grant
application process will enable grantees to submit their progress
reports electronically. The system will compile the data into an
electronic dataset, facilitating analysis of the data.
Labor is also taking steps to improve the completeness and accuracy of
WIASRD data on national emergency grant participants. In guidance
issued on November 13, 2003, for the submission of program year 2002
data, Labor specified that states are required to include participants
who exited from national emergency grant programs.[Footnote 24]
According to Labor officials, the agency also plans to clarify the
WIASRD reporting requirements for national emergency grants in new
guidance on performance measures to be issued by July 2004. In
addition, for the program year 2002 WIASRD, Labor checked states'
submissions to identify whether data had been submitted for all grants
awarded. For states whose submissions were missing data, Labor
requested that they send in a revised submission that included data on
national emergency grants. However, managers of the WIASRD database
said that some states were not able to send in data on national
emergency grant participants, and as a result, the program year 2002
WIASRD will not have complete data. Although Labor does not have
specific, written plans to check states' future WIASRD submissions to
identify missing data, a Labor official believes the agency will
continue to do so. Labor is also planning to implement a data
validation program to ensure the accuracy of state-reported data on
national emergency grant participants. According to Labor officials,
this program is in the early planning stages and no date has been set
for its implementation.
Conclusions:
With nearly 7 million workers losing their jobs in the few years since
the turn of the century, increasing importance has been placed on
programs intended to help dislocated workers. When major layoffs and
disasters occur, states and local areas need to respond quickly to
ensure that workers facing unemployment receive the services they need
to re-enter the workforce at a comparable wage. Unfortunately, their
dislocated worker formula funds are often insufficient to adequately
meet the needs of the large number of workers losing their jobs. In
previous work, we found that the formula used to allocate dislocated
worker funds does not always result in states receiving the amount of
funds they need. Accordingly, states and local areas turn to Labor for
additional funds, such as those reserved by Labor for national
emergency grants.
Timely awarding of national emergency grants is imperative for states
and local areas to provide services when they are most needed.
Therefore, it is important that Labor consider the length of time it
takes to complete the full process for awarding grants. Although Labor
is making changes to the award process, some concerns remain. Labor
does not have a timeliness goal for the full award process or for
incremental payments. In addition, the proposed guidelines do not
require the continuous counting of days from the time the application
is received until the grant is awarded--Labor can stop the clock if
officials feel the application is incomplete. As a result, Labor may
appear to meet its timeliness goal even though, from a grantee's
perspective, the grant funds were received months after the application
was filed.
Neither of the two primary data sources on the national emergency
grants provides reliable national-level information on how these funds
are used. Reliable information on how national emergency grant funds
are used is essential for Labor to effectively manage the program and
report on a national level how grant funds are being used.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
In order for Labor to better manage the grant award process and to
accurately assess how long it takes to make grant awards and
incremental payments, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor take
additional actions. In particular, Labor should:
* set timeliness goals for the full process--from the receipt of the
application until the award letter is sent--for initial grant awards
and incremental payments; and:
* continuously track the number of days that have passed beginning when
applications are first submitted until the award letter is sent,
including days grantees spend revising their applications.
In addition, to ensure that information relating to national emergency
grants is accurate and complete we recommend that Labor:
* develop specific reporting guidance on progress reports to ensure
that grantees define data elements consistently;
* ensure that all states submit WIASRD data on participants exiting
from services provided with national emergency grants (for grantees
that are not states, ensure that they submit WIASRD data on national
emergency grants to states for submission to Labor).
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to officials at Labor for their
review and comment. In its comments, Labor took issue with the report's
methodology, said it believes that the report makes assertions not
supported by empirical evidence, and disagreed with our conclusions.
Labor stated that timeliness of national emergency grants has been a
concern dating back to JTPA and that the current administration set a
goal of 30 working days to provide states with an answer to a complete
application. Labor also contends that the weaknesses in the
improvements being undertaken in the grant award process that we cite
in the report are subjective and inaccurate. Finally, Labor listed
reforms that are under way or have been implemented, including business
process mapping, an electronic application tool, policy guidance,
regional forums, and technical assistance to states.
We disagree with Labor's characterization of the report's methodology
and conclusions. As stated in the report, our analysis looked at the
complete application process from a grantee's perspective. We reviewed
files for every regular grant that was awarded between July 1, 2000,
and June 30, 2003, for which complete information was available and
compared the date that Labor received the application with the date
Labor issued an award letter to the grantee. States and local areas
apply for national emergency grants when a major layoff occurs, and it
is imperative that grantees receive funds in a timely manner to provide
assistance when it is most needed. Accordingly, we believe that the
date the application is received is an appropriate starting point for
the grant award process. If applications are incomplete, then this
issue should be addressed and the application moved forward in a timely
manner. We recognize a shared responsibility to ensure that grant
applications are complete and accurate, and as pointed out in our
report, Labor has taken steps to assist grantees in submitting
applications that are as close to being complete as possible. We also
believe that the ending date should be when the grantee is notified of
the award rather than at an interim departmental approval point. As we
reported, the final steps after Labor has stopped the clock on the
award process have taken an additional 20 or more days in some cases.
Delays in grant awards have had effects on the ability of local areas
to provide services to workers who have lost their jobs, as reported by
25 states that responded to our survey on national emergency grants.
For Labor to have set a goal for the award process is commendable, but
the emphasis needs to be on awarding national emergency grants as
quickly as possible to allow local areas to meet the needs of
dislocated workers.
We also disagree that the stated weaknesses in the improvements being
undertaken in the grant award process are subjective and inaccurate.
Rather these weaknesses are based upon Labor's proposed guidelines and
discussions with Labor officials. First, Labor's proposed guidelines
state that Labor is committed to making a decision to approve or
disapprove an application within 30 working days of receiving a
complete application. As pointed out in our report, there are steps
that follow this decision that have taken another 20 days in some
cases, and Labor's counting of days elapsed may not always be
continuous. We believe the 30-day goal should include the entire
process. Second, the proposed guidelines do not relate the 30-day goal
to incremental payments, and Labor officials confirmed that incremental
payments are not yet included in the new electronic system. Third,
while the proposed guidelines provide a form for progress reports,
Labor officials acknowledged that data element definitions have not yet
been developed. Finally, while a Labor official speculated that
checking the completeness of states' submissions to the WIASRD database
would continue, no such plans have been documented. We believe that to
better manage the national emergency grant award process, these
additional actions should be implemented.
In regard to the reforms cited by Labor in its comments, our report
identified all of these efforts except for the proposed technical
assistance. We have added a statement to the report to indicate that
Labor plans to provide technical assistance and work with states on an
individual basis to help them fully integrate services available to
dislocated workers through the one-stop service delivery system.
Labor's comments are in appendix IV.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until
14 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to relevant congressional committees and other interested
parties and will make copies 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.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215. Other major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We were asked to determine (1) the effectiveness of the overall process
for awarding national emergency grant funds, (2) whether Labor's
proposed changes will improve the grant award process, and (3) what is
known about how grant funds are being used. To respond to these issues,
we interviewed Labor officials at both headquarters and regional
offices, reviewed Labor files for all grants awarded during program
years 2000 through 2002, and surveyed officials in the 39 states that
had received at least one regular national emergency grant during that
period. We also reviewed Labor's two data sources that contain
information on the use of national emergency grants. We conducted our
work from March 2003 to March 2004 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
File Review:
We obtained from Labor a listing of all national emergency grants
awarded between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003. We then reviewed files
maintained by Labor to identify when the original application was
submitted and received and the date the award letter was signed. For
those grants funded incrementally, we also identified when the
incremental funding request was submitted and received and the date the
incremental award letter was sent. We limited our analysis to those
grants funded with the Secretary's reserve from the dislocated worker
funds under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). For some grants,
documentation on when the application was received was not in the files
(see table 4).
Table 4: Number of National Emergency Grants Awarded and Used in GAO
Analysis:
Type of grant: Regular grants;
Number of grants awarded between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003: 159;
Number of files containing complete information used in our analysis:
141.
Type of grant: Disaster grants;
Number of grants awarded between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003: 19;
Number of files containing complete information used in our analysis:
11.
Type of grant: Dual enrollment grants;
Number of grants awarded between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003: 69;
Number of files containing complete information used in our analysis:
49.
Source: GAO analysis of national emergency grants awarded between July
1, 2000, and June 30, 2003.
[End of table]
Using information contained in the files, for each grant we calculated
the number of calendar days between the date Labor received the
original grant application and the date of the grant award letter.
For 16 grants for which 150 or more calendar days elapsed between the
date the original grant application was received and the date the award
letter was sent, we conducted a detailed review of the grant files to
determine how long various steps of the review process took. We
identified dates that applicants submitted additional information,
dates that Labor received the additional information, dates of the
decision memorandum, dates that the Secretary signed the decision
memorandum, and dates that various Labor staff approved the award
letter. We then calculated the number of calendar days that elapsed
between each of these dates.
Survey of States That Received Regular Grants:
To obtain information on states' experiences with the process for
receiving national emergency grants, we conducted an e-mail survey of
officials in 39 states that received at least one regular grant in
program years 2000 to 2002 (see table 5).
Figure 11: 39 States Surveyed That Were Awarded a Regular
National Emergency Grant during Program Years 2000 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of national emergency grants awarded between July
1, 2000 and June 30, 2003.
[End of table]
We received responses from 38 states (a 97 percent response
rate).[Footnote 25] We limited the survey to regular grants because
they constituted about 60 percent of the grants awarded, representing
about 64 percent of the funds, in that time period. Although Labor also
awarded four regular grants to local areas in program years 2000 to
2002, we limited our survey to state officials because the number of
local grantees was too small to be meaningful.
We identified the states that received regular grants from a list that
Labor provided of grants awarded in program years 2000 to 2002 and the
state in which they were awarded.[Footnote 26]
In developing our survey, we conducted pretests with three states. We
contacted respondents to clarify information when needed. We analyzed
the survey data by calculating descriptive statistics, as well as
performing content analysis of the responses to open-ended survey
questions.
Assessment of Data Quality:
To determine whether progress reports might be a viable source of data
to determine how national emergency grant funds are used at the
national level, we obtained progress reports from 1 to 3 states from
each of the Labor regional offices. We analyzed the reports to
determine how consistent the data elements were from state to state.
To determine whether the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record
Data (WIASRD) might be a viable source of data to determine how
national emergency grant funds are used at the national level, we
reviewed guidance issued by Labor and reports issued by Labor's Office
of Inspector General (OIG), state agencies, and Labor contractors. We
also interviewed the OIG official responsible for an audit of WIA's
performance data and the officials from Social Policy Research
Associates, the Labor contractor responsible for compiling the WIASRD.
In addition, we performed electronic tests of the program year 2001
WIASRD data, including conducting frequencies and cross-tabulations,
comparing results with published reports and identifying missing or
incorrect values.
To determine the completeness of data on national emergency grants in
the WIASRD, we compared states' data in the program year 2001 WIASRD
against a list of states that had received one or more regular, dual
enrollment, or disaster grants at least one year prior to the end of
the reporting period for the 2001 WIASRD or by June 30, 2001. This
analysis assumes that some participants in a grant program begun in
program year 2000 would have exited during program year 2001. For
states for which the 2001 WIASRD did not contain data on grant
participants although they had received grants in program year 2000, we
contacted the states to confirm that participants served with grants
had exited in program year 2001.
We determined that the WIASRD data elements pertinent to this report
were not sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We have discussed the
data reliability issues throughout the body of the report.
Interviews with Labor Officials:
To obtain information on the process for awarding national emergency
grants, we conducted interviews with Labor officials in the Office of
National Response and Office of Grants and Contracts Management. We
also interviewed officials in ETA's Office of Technology to obtain
information on the electronic system for managing the grant process. To
obtain information on reporting requirements and monitoring and
oversight practices for the national emergency grant program, we
interviewed officials in the Office of Field Operations. We also
interviewed officials in all six Labor regions who are responsible for
monitoring and oversight of national emergency grants. In Region 1, we
interviewed both the Boston office and the New York office.
To obtain information on Labor's data validation initiative for
national emergency grants, we interviewed an official in ETA's
Performance and Results Office and a contractor developing the
technical components of the initiative. We also attended a training
session on the WIA data validation initiative held in Labor's San
Francisco office for states and local areas in Region 6.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Summary of Funds Awarded for Regular, Disaster, and Dual
Enrollment Grants for Program Years 2000-2002:
State: Alabama;
Regular: $1,391,359;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: $8,935,689;
Total: $10,327,048.
State: Arizona;
Regular: 1,271,931;
Disaster: $2,291,674;
Dual enrollment: 456,286;
Total: 4,019,891.
State: Arkansas;
Regular: 8,745,980;
Disaster: 1,176,000;
Dual enrollment: 1,257,566;
Total: 11,179,546.
State: California;
Regular: 38,631,721;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 8,576,548;
Total: 47,208,269.
State: Colorado;
Regular: 6,411,981;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 797,952;
Total: 7,209,933.
State: Connecticut;
Regular: 5,139,856;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 799,621;
Total: 5,939,477.
State: District of Columbia;
Regular: 876,573;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 0;
Total: 876,573.
State: Federated States of Micronesia;
Regular: 0;
Disaster: 1,150,000;
Dual enrollment: 0;
Total: 1,150,000.
State: Florida;
Regular: 11,064,618;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 6,353,858;
Total: 17,418,476.
State: Georgia;
Regular: 3,446,880;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 0;
Total: 3,446,880.
State: Guam;
Regular: 0;
Disaster: 13,300,000;
Dual enrollment: 0;
Total: 13,300,000.
State: Idaho;
Regular: 4,445,674;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 1,800,000;
Total: 6,245,674.
State: Illinois;
Regular: 9,012,466;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 7,238,985;
Total: 16,251,451.
State: Indiana;
Regular: 5,474,686;
Disaster: 550,456;
Dual enrollment: 1,249,999;
Total: 7,275,141.
State: Iowa;
Regular: 9,540,435;
Disaster: 818,561;
Dual enrollment: 5,617,404;
Total: 15,976,400.
State: Kansas;
Regular: 3,267,080;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 3,145,175;
Total: 6,412,255.
State: Kentucky;
Regular: 8,084,658;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 2,851,146;
Total: 10,935,804.
State: Louisiana;
Regular: 0;
Disaster: 4,780,000;
Dual enrollment: 0;
Total: 4,780,000.
State: Maine;
Regular: 16,396,287;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 1,717,471;
Total: 18,113,758.
State: Maryland;
Regular: 7,884,071;
Disaster: 1,000,000;
Dual enrollment: 267,245;
Total: 9,151,316.
State: Massachusetts;
Regular: 28,871,460;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 2,764,133;
Total: 31,635,593.
State: Michigan;
Regular: 1,427,657;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 8,436,000;
Total: 9,863,657.
State: Minnesota;
Regular: 13,486,750;
Disaster: 1,825,000;
Dual enrollment: 4,679,140;
Total: 19,990,890.
State: Mississippi;
Regular: 1,644,366;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 0;
Total: 1,644,366.
State: Missouri;
Regular: 8,693,208;
Disaster: 2,876,946;
Dual enrollment: 3,863,989;
Total: 15,434,143.
State: Montana;
Regular: 9,638,868;
Disaster: 4,314,800;
Dual enrollment: 614,322;
Total: 14,567,990.
State: Nebraska;
Regular: 2,168,931;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 1,357,528;
Total: 3,526,459.
State: Nevada;
Regular: 5,800,000;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 0;
Total: 5,800,000.
State: New Hampshire;
Regular: 5,474,859;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: ;
Total: 5,474,859.
State: New Jersey;
Regular: 3,570,627;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 6,387,037;
Total: 9,957,664.
State: New Mexico;
Regular: 0;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 560,842;
Total: 560,842.
State: New York;
Regular: 0;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 1,561,851;
Total: 1,561,851.
State: North Carolina;
Regular: 0;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 19,373,963;
Total: 19,373,963.
State: North Dakota;
Regular: 378,793;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 99,000;
Total: 477,793.
State: Ohio;
Regular: 15,200,826;
Disaster: 1,500,000;
Dual enrollment: 10,338,929;
Total: 27,039,755.
State: Oklahoma;
Regular: 2,907,969;
Disaster: 1,000,000;
Dual enrollment: 2,876,964;
Total: 6,784,933.
State: Oregon;
Regular: 18,151,492;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 8,665,146;
Total: 26,816,638.
State: Pennsylvania;
Regular: 20,319,216;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 49,071,363;
Total: 69,390,579.
State: Rhode Island;
Regular: 1,027,470;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 2,068,236;
Total: 3,095,706.
State: South Carolina;
Regular: 1,895,619;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 1,519,039;
Total: 3,414,658.
State: South Dakota;
Regular: 2,308,571;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 123,694;
Total: 2,432,265.
State: Tennessee;
Regular: 4,827,774;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 888,873;
Total: 5,716,647.
State: Texas;
Regular: 23,776,743;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 3,011,738;
Total: 26,788,481.
State: Utah;
Regular: 0;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 740,230;
Total: 740,230.
State: Vermont;
Regular: 750,000;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 635,877;
Total: 1,385,877.
State: Virginia;
Regular: 22,350,000;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 3,303,031;
Total: 25,653,031.
State: Washington;
Regular: 11,768,668;
Disaster: 0;
Dual enrollment: 13,661,486;
Total: 25,430,154.
State: West Virginia;
Regular: 0;
Disaster: 12,499,990;
Dual enrollment: 0;
Total: 12,499,990.
State: Wisconsin;
Regular: 6,591,086;
Disaster: 250,000;
Dual enrollment: 13,322,451;
Total: 20,163,537.
State: Total;
Regular: $354,117,209;
Disaster: $49,333,427;
Dual enrollment: $210,989,807;
Total: $614,440,443.
[End of table]
Source: GAO analysis of regular, disaster, and dual enrollment grant
funds awarded between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003.
The amounts shown include national emergency grant funds awarded during
program years 2000-2002. This includes all initial grant awards and
incremental payments made during this time, including incremental
payments made for grants initially awarded prior to July 1, 2000. For
example, Arizona and North Dakota each received an incremental payment
for a regular grant awarded under JTPA.
Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, and Wyoming did not receive any regular,
disaster, or dual enrollment national emergency grants during program
years 2000-2002.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Average Number of Days Regular Grants Were Awarded by
State:
State: Alabama;
Number of regular grants[A]: 2;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 120.
State: Arkansas;
Number of regular grants[A]: 1;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 23.
State: California;
Number of regular grants[A]: 1;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 206.
State: Colorado;
Number of regular grants[A]: 1;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 62.
State: Connecticut;
Number of regular grants[A]: 6;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 102.
State: District of Columbia;
Number of regular grants[A]: 1;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 131.
State: Florida;
Number of regular grants[A]: 1;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 63.
State: Georgia;
Number of regular grants[A]: 4;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 137.
State: Idaho;
Number of regular grants[A]: 4;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 70.
State: Illinois;
Number of regular grants[A]: 3;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 39.
State: Indiana;
Number of regular grants[A]: 2;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 92.
State: Iowa;
Number of regular grants[A]: 16;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 103.
State: Kansas;
Number of regular grants[A]: 3;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 63.
State: Kentucky;
Number of regular grants[A]: 3;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 126.
State: Maine;
Number of regular grants[A]: 13;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 91.
State: Maryland;
Number of regular grants[A]: 2;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 77.
State: Massachusetts;
Number of regular grants[A]: 9;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 87.
State: Michigan;
Number of regular grants[A]: 3;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 85.
State: Minnesota;
Number of regular grants[A]: 3;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 103.
State: Missouri;
Number of regular grants[A]: 12;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 99.
State: Montana;
Number of regular grants[A]: 5;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 51.
State: Nebraska;
Number of regular grants[A]: 2;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 40.
State: Nevada;
Number of regular grants[A]: 1;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 79.
State: New Hampshire;
Number of regular grants[A]: 3;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 78.
State: New Jersey;
Number of regular grants[A]: 3;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 174.
State: Ohio;
Number of regular grants[A]: 4;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 40.
Number of regular grants[A]: Oklahoma: 3;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 123.
State: Oregon;
Number of regular grants[A]: 6;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 96.
State: Pennsylvania;
Number of regular grants[A]: 4;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 109.
State: Rhode Island;
Number of regular grants[A]: 3;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 32.
State: South Carolina;
Number of regular grants[A]: 1;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 122.
State: South Dakota;
Number of regular grants[A]: 3;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 82.
State: Tennessee;
Number of regular grants[A]: 2;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 116.
State: Texas;
Number of regular grants[A]: 3;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 122.
State: Virginia;
Number of regular grants[A]: 2;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 106.
State: Vermont;
Number of regular grants[A]: 1;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 90.
State: Wisconsin;
Number of regular grants[A]: 5;
Average number of days from receipt of application to award: 77.
Source: GAO analysis of regular grant funds awarded between July 1,
2000, and June 30, 2003.
[A] This represents the number of regular grants for which complete
information was available. There were a total of 14 regular grants for
which we did not have complete information.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training
Washington, D.C. 20210:
MAR 6 2004:
Mr. Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
United States General Accounting Office
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
This is in response to the draft report regarding National Emergency
Grants (NEGs) provided to the Department of Labor (DOL) for comment.
While we appreciate the opportunity to formally comment on the report,
we are disappointed and object to the methodology of the report and its
conclusions. In fact, throughout the period when the GAO was collecting
data and information and the subsequent development of its report, DOL
has voiced these concerns. We believe this document contains statements
and conclusions not supported by the facts. Because we believe that the
final report is an incomplete product and does not capture or discuss
the true nature of the issues, we are not responding point-by-point to
the report directly.
The timeliness of the availability of NEG funds to supplement
assistance for dislocated workers has been a concern that reaches back
to the days of the Job Training Partnership Act. Because the Bush
Administration believes that NEGs are an important and flexible
response to worker dislocations, we imposed our own goal of 30 working
days to provide states with an answer to a complete application.
Current DOL management believes strongly that the 30 working day
deadline should be met; therefore, the following reforms are underway
or have been implemented:
* Business Process Mapping. We hired IBM as a contractor to assist us
with completing a full and complete mapping of our business processes
from the time a state submits a complete application until the time
that the Grant Officer signs the grant award documents. During each of
these steps, timeframes have been assigned so that an application is
answered within the self-imposed timeframe of 30 working days.
NEG E-Application Tool and Guidelines. One of the problems in being
able to effectively evaluate a NEG application often is the incomplete
information we receive from states. In order to mitigate this, we have
developed a NEG e-application tool that is in prototype status. The e-
application tool will not accept an incomplete application. In
addition, new NEG guidelines have recently been developed that describe
the types of NEG applications and the information that needs to be
contained in applications in order to be considered for an award. The
guidelines also articulate policies governing NEG program design and
expected outcomes. The e-application tool and NEG guidelines will be
fully implemented on July 1.
* NEG Policy Guidance. As a companion piece to the NEG guidelines, we
have issued a Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) to the
workforce investment system that articulates priorities and
requirements for NEG funding and policy decisions, including formula
funding expenditure requirements. TEGL 16-03 was published January 26,
2004, and was also distributed at a series of regional forums conducted
for senior state workforce investment officials. A copy is enclosed.
Regional Forums. ETA hosted six regional forums/training sessions that
focused on policies, priorities and expectations. The sessions were
held between December 8 and March 10. The training sessions encompassed
changes and expectations for NEGs, the Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) program and rapid response, and provisions governing the Health
Coverage Tax Credit in collaboration with the Internal Revenue Service.
* Additional Training. The regional sessions will be followed with
individualized training to specific states. ETA program teams will work
with states on an individual basis to cover the "How To's" of these
various programs to fully integrate services available for all
dislocated workers through the One-Stop service delivery system. A
series of technical assistance materials are being developed as well.
Training and technical assistance for state and local workforce
investment board staff will be on-going through the remainder of PY
2003 and throughout PY 2004.
In addition, as articulated in the NEG policy TEGL, ETA has improved
its procedures to deal with incomplete applications. Rather than
working informally with applicants to resolve any issues (which often
resulted in significant delays in processing times), incomplete
applications are being formally returned to the applicant with a
request for specific information. Once a complete application is
received, the "processing clock" begins. This will speed up the
decision process because applicants will resolve outstanding issues
prior to funding determinations.
In conclusion, we are extremely disappointed that GAO chose to make
assertions that are not supported by empirical evidence. We view the
stated "weaknesses" in the improvements being undertaken as subjective
and inaccurate. Further, we found the research flawed because it did
not factor in the dynamics of complete/ incomplete applications, but
rather put state/applicant responsibilities for providing needed
information on the Department rather than the grantee. This does not
diminish the Department's responsibility to clearly articulate
requirements and expectations; however, we have set a new standard of
leadership in the administration of the National Emergency Grant
program.
We believe it would be beneficial for GAO and the Department if we had
an opportunity to meet and discuss the changes underway to improve the
overall processing of NEG applications.
Sincerely,
Emily Stover DeRocco:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Joan Mahagan (617) 788-0521 Wayne Sylvia (617) 788-0524:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Yunsian Tai made significant contributions to this report in all
aspects of the work. In addition, Angela Anderson collected financial
and program oversight information from Labor headquarters and regional
offices; John Smale, Stuart Kaufman, and William Bates assisted in
designing and analyzing the national survey; Barbara Johnson and Paula
Bonin assisted in data reliability assessments; Jessica Botsford and
Richard Burkard provided legal support; and Corinna Nicolaou provided
writing assistance.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve Quality
of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. GAO-04-308.
Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004.
Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Employment Placement and
Training through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with Federally
Funded Programs. GAO-04-282. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2004.
National Emergency Grants: Services to Dislocated Workers Hampered by
Delays in Grant Awards, but Labor Is Initiating Actions to Improve
Grant Award Process. GAO-04-222. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on
State Allocations. GAO-03-1043. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information
Sharing is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to
Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization. GAO-03-
884T. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for
Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO-03-636. Washington, D.C.:
April 25, 2003.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and Performance
Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington, D.C.: April 18,
2003.
Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs,
but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers.
GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003.
Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other
Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: States' Spending Is on Track, but Better
Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting. GAO-03-239. Washington,
D.C.: November 22, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Interim Report on Status of Spending and
States' Available Funds. GAO-02-1074. Washington, D.C.: September 5,
2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula
Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274. Washington, D.C.:
February 11, 2002.
FOOTNOTES
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, National Emergency Grants: Services
to Dislocated Workers Hampered by Delays in Grant Awards, but Labor Is
Initiating Actions to Improve Grant Award Process, GAO-04-222
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2003).
[2] A program year begins on July 1 of a year and ends on June 30 of the
following year. A program year is designated by the year in which it
begins. Thus, program year 2002 began on July 1, 2002, and ended on
June 30, 2003.
[3] A displaced homemaker is an individual who has been providing
unpaid services to family members in the home and who (1) has been
dependent on the income of another family member but is no longer
supported by that income and (2) is unemployed or underemployed and is
experiencing difficulty in obtaining or upgrading employment.
[4] Short-term prevocational services prepare individuals for
employment or training and include development of learning skills,
communication skills, interviewing skills, punctuality, personal
maintenance, and professional conduct.
[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Issues
Related to Allocation Formulas for Youth, Adults, and Dislocated
Workers, GAO-03-636 (Washington, D.C., April 25, 2003).
[6] National emergency grant funds may not be used to pay for any costs
of core services that have already been budgeted under available
formula funds.
[7] In program year 2002, Labor also awarded about $3 million to 24
states to provide funding support for system-building costs associated
with the provision of the new health care coverage benefits for
eligible individuals and related tax credits and about $14 million to 4
states to provide insurance payments to eligible dislocated workers as
authorized by the Trade Reform Act of 2002. Both of these types of
awards are funded through a separate appropriation.
[8] National emergency grant progress reports are a separate reporting
requirement from WIA quarterly reports that states submit for their
adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs. States are not required
to report data on national emergency grants in the WIA quarterly or
annual reports.
[9] Throughout the report, we define grant award as the date the award
letter was sent and at which time grantees can begin obligating funds.
[10] Although 19 disaster grants and 68 dual enrollment grants were
awarded between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2003, this information is
based upon our review and analysis of 11 disaster grants and 49 dual
enrollment grants for which complete information was available.
[11] Although 44 regular grant incremental payments were made between
July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003, this information is based upon our
review and analysis of 36 payments for which complete information was
available.
[12] The three grants awarded to Kentucky grantees took 71, 122, and
181 days from when the grant applications were received to when the
award letter was signed.
[13] Labor will no longer include weekends and holidays when counting
toward its 30-day goal.
[14] U.S. Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance Letter
No. 16-03 (Washington, D.C., 2004).
[15] U.S. Department of Labor, National Emergency Grants Program: NEG
Review Process Reengineering Project: Phase I Report, Final Report
(March 9, 2004).
[16] The proposed guidelines also state that Labor will restart the
counting if a state submits a revised application that Labor has not
requested.
[17] This information is based upon the review and analysis of 16
grants for which 150 or more calendar days elapsed between the date the
original grant application was received and the date the award letter
was sent.
[18] Awarding of incremental payments does not require the approval of
the Secretary of Labor.
[19] Some information on use of national emergency grant funds is
available in a study conducted by Social Policy Research Associates and
funded by the Department of Labor. This study provides information on
nine programs funded by national emergency grants in eight states. The
sample of projects was not selected to be representative of the whole
population of national emergency grant projects.
[20] Use of unemployment insurance wage reports to determine the number
of participants who entered employment is generally considered to be
more reliable than use of information gathered by caseworkers.
[21] U.S. Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance Letter
No. 14-00 (Washington, D.C., 2001).
[22] Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Workforce
Investment Act Performance Outcomes Reporting Oversight, 06-02-006-03-
390 (Washington, D.C., Sept. 30, 2002).
[23] U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Labor
Actions Can Help States Improve Quality of Performance Outcome Data and
Delivery of Youth Services, GAO-04-308, (Washington, D.C., February 23,
2004).
[24] U.S. Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance Letter
No. 14-03 (Washington, D.C., 2003).
[25] Illinois did not respond to the survey.
[26] We initially e-mailed surveys to 42 states, but 3 states contacted
us and explained that they had not received regular grants from program
years 2000 to 2002. In 1 state, the grants we had identified as regular
were actually dual enrollment grants. In 2 states, the grants we had
identified as regular were actually incremental payments for grants
awarded prior to program year 2000, when the grants were part of the
Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. We confirmed their
information with the grant application files and did not include these
3 states in our survey population.
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:
