Workforce Investment Act
Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes Gao ID: GAO-05-650 June 29, 2005The Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998 seeking to create a system connecting employment, education, and training services to better match job seekers to labor market needs. However, questions have been raised about how WIA funds are being used and, in particular, how much is being spent on training. Contributing to the concern about the use of WIA funds is the lack of accurate information about the extent to which WIA participants are enrolled in training activities. GAO was asked to determine (1) the extent to which WIA funds are used for training, (2) how local workforce boards manage the use of Individual Training Accounts (ITA) and what challenges they have encountered, and (3) what is known at the national level about outcomes of those being trained. In its comments, the Department of Labor (Labor) noted that some of our estimates on training conflicts with their estimates. Labor's estimate of the number of adults trained comes from their database and includes only those who had exited from the program. GAO's estimates represent a more complete and accurate picture than Labor's because they are based on information obtained directly from the local workforce areas, include all funds spent or obligated for training, and count all adults who received training in program year 2003, not just those who exited the program.
Local workforce boards used an estimated 40 percent of the WIA funds they had available in program year 2003 to obtain training services for WIA participants. Nationally, local boards had approximately $2.4 billion in WIA funds that were available to serve adults and dislocated workers during program year 2003 and used about $929 million for training activities. The remaining funds paid for other program costs as well as administrative costs. We estimate that 416,000 WIA participants received training during the year. However, because some individuals may have received more than one type of training, this count may include some individuals more than once. Most of the participants received occupational classroom training purchased with ITAs, which are established on behalf of an eligible participant to finance training services. Most local workforce boards have developed policies to manage the use of ITAs, but many boards have encountered challenges in trying to implement their use. Local boards often require participants to complete specified tasks prior to entering training, such as gathering additional information on their desired occupation. In addition, they generally limit the amount of money participants can spend on training using ITAs and how long the training can last. Among the challenges encountered by local boards was the lack of good performance data on training providers making it difficult to determine which providers were most effective. Local boards in rural areas faced a different challenge--lack of nearby training providers. Little is known on a national level about the outcomes of those being trained. Certain aspects of Labor's national participant database have been found to be incomplete and unverified. Additionally, data generally cannot be compared across states or local areas because of variations in data definitions. Labor is taking some steps to address these concerns, but the findings from this study reaffirm the need for a continued focus on resolving reported data quality issues.
GAO-05-650, Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-650
entitled 'Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for
Training, but Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes' which
was released on June 29, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2005:
Workforce Investment Act:
Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but Little Is Known Nationally
about Training Outcomes:
GAO-05-650:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-650, a report to Congressional Requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998 seeking
to create a system connecting employment, education, and training
services to better match job seekers to labor market needs. However,
questions have been raised about how WIA funds are being used and, in
particular, how much is being spent on training. Contributing to the
concern about the use of WIA funds is the lack of accurate information
about the extent to which WIA participants are enrolled in training
activities. GAO was asked to determine (1) the extent to which WIA
funds are used for training, (2) how local workforce boards manage the
use of Individual Training Accounts (ITA) and what challenges they have
encountered, and (3) what is known at the national level about outcomes
of those being trained.
In its comments, the Department of Labor (Labor) noted that some of our
estimates on training conflicts with their estimates. Labor‘s estimate
of the number of adults trained comes from their database and includes
only those who had exited from the program. GAO‘s estimates represent a
more complete and accurate picture than Labor‘s because they are based
on information obtained directly from the local workforce areas,
include all funds spent or obligated for training, and count all adults
who received training in program year 2003, not just those who exited
the program.
What GAO Found:
Local workforce boards used an estimated 40 percent of the WIA funds
they had available in program year 2003 to obtain training services for
WIA participants. Nationally, local boards had approximately $2.4
billion in WIA funds that were available to serve adults and dislocated
workers during program year 2003 and used about $929 million for
training activities (see fig.) The remaining funds paid for other
program costs as well as administrative costs. We estimate that 416,000
WIA participants received training during the year. However, because
some individuals may have received more than one type of training, this
count may include some individuals more than once. Most of the
participants received occupational classroom training purchased with
ITAs, which are established on behalf of an eligible participant to
finance training services.
Most local workforce boards have developed policies to manage the use
of ITAs, but many boards have encountered challenges in trying to
implement their use. Local boards often require participants to
complete specified tasks prior to entering training, such as gathering
additional information on their desired occupation. In addition, they
generally limit the amount of money participants can spend on training
using ITAs and how long the training can last. Among the challenges
encountered by local boards was the lack of good performance data on
training providers making it difficult to determine which providers
were most effective. Local boards in rural areas faced a different
challenge”lack of nearby training providers.
Little is known on a national level about the outcomes of those being
trained. Certain aspects of Labor‘s national participant database have
been found to be incomplete and unverified. Additionally, data
generally cannot be compared across states or local areas because of
variations in data definitions. Labor is taking some steps to address
these concerns, but the findings from this study reaffirm the need for
a continued focus on resolving reported data quality issues.
WIA Funds Available and Used for Training in Program Year 2003:
[See PDF for image] --graphic text:
Bar graph with ten items.
Dollars in millions.
WIA adult;
Funds available: $989;
Funds used for training: $419.
WIA dislocated worker;
Funds available: $889;
Funds used for training: $332.
National Emergency grants;
Funds available: $204;
Funds used for training: $77.
State set-asides;
Funds available: $295;
Funds used for training: $101.
Total;
Funds available: $2,377;
Funds used for training: $929.
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: Funds used for training include funds spent or obligated for
training in program year 2003.
[End of figure]
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-650.
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:
Local Boards Used an Estimated 40 Percent of Available WIA Funds to
Train Program Participants:
Local Boards Manage ITAs but Have Faced Challenges in Implementing
Them:
Little Is Known about Outcomes of Those Being Trained because of
Weaknesses in Data Collected:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Summary of Adult and Dislocated Worker Formula Funds for
Program Year 2003:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker Outcome Performance Measures:
Table 2: Estimated Total Number of Instances in Which WIA Participants
Were Trained during Program Year 2003, by Category and Funding Source:
Table 3: Challenges Encountered by Local Boards:
Table 4: 95 Percent Confidence Intervals for Numeric Estimates with
Margins of Error Exceeding 15 Percent of the Value of Those Estimates:
Table 5: Locations Selected for Site Visits:
Figures:
Figure 1: WIA Funding Streams for Youth, Adults, and Dislocated
Workers:
Figure 2: Distribution of Local Workforce Investment Areas in Program
Year 2003:
Figure 3: Estimated Total WIA Funds Available for Local Areas in
Program Year 2003:
Figure 4: Estimated Total WIA Funds Used for Training in Program Year
2003:
Figure 5: Estimated Percentage of WIA Funds Used for Training, by
Funding Source:
Figure 6: Estimated WIA-Funded Training in Program Year 2003, by
Category:
Figure 7: Estimated Percentage of Local Boards Requiring Completion of
Specified Activities for Adults and Dislocated Workers Seeking
Training:
Figure 8: Estimated Percentage of Local Boards with Various Dollar Caps
on ITAs:
Figure 9: Estimated Percentage of Local Boards Requiring Participants
to Use ITA Funds for Costs Other than Tuition:
Abbreviations:
EMILE: ETA Management Information and Longitudinal Evaluation:
ETA: Employment and Training Administration:
ETPL: eligible training provider list:
ITA: Individual Training Account:
NAWB: National Association of Workforce Boards:
OIG: Office of Inspector General:
TAA: Trade Adjustment Assistance:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
WIASRD: Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 29, 2005:
The Honorable Michael B. Enzi:
Chairman:
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 and Workplace Safety:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998, seeking
to create a system connecting employment, education, and training
services to better match job seekers to labor market needs. However,
questions have been raised about how WIA funds are being used and, in
particular, how much is being spent on training. Contributing to the
concern about the use of WIA funds is the lack of accurate information
about the extent to which WIA participants are enrolled in training
activities. In program year 2003,[Footnote 1] the Congress appropriated
approximately $2.3 billion for the Department of Labor (Labor) to
provide employment and training services to adults (those individuals
aged 18 and older) and dislocated workers (in general, those
individuals who have been laid off and are unlikely to return to their
previous employment). Because not everyone needs or wants additional
training, WIA authorizes local workforce boards to oversee a variety of
services provided through one-stop career centers to meet the needs of
individual job seekers as well as the needs of the businesses in their
area. Such services include providing information on job openings,
comprehensive assessments, individual counseling, supportive services-
-such as transportation and child care--and job training. Job training
includes occupational skills training, which is typically purchased by
WIA participants using Individual Training Accounts (ITA). ITAs are
established on behalf of an eligible participant to finance training
services, and payments from these accounts can be made in a variety of
ways, including the electronic transfer of funds or the use of
vouchers.
The primary vehicle for collecting and reporting information about the
extent to which WIA participants are enrolled in training activities,
including training funded through ITAs, is Labor's national participant
database, the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data
(WIASRD). However, both we and Labor's Office of Inspector General have
raised concerns about the completeness and accuracy of data contained
in WIASRD. Because of your interest in how WIA funds are being spent at
the local level, you asked us to determine (1) the extent to which WIA
funds are used for training, (2) how local workforce boards manage the
use of ITAs and what challenges they have encountered, and (3) what is
known at the national level about outcomes of those being trained.
To determine the extent to which program year 2003 WIA funds were used
for training,[Footnote 2] how local workforce boards manage ITAs, and
what challenges they have encountered in implementing ITAs, we
conducted a Web-based survey of the 590 local workforce investment
boards that were in existence in program year 2003 and located in the
50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. We received responses
from 428 (73 percent). We used the 428 responses to make estimates
about the entire population of local workforce investment boards.
[Footnote 3] We gathered information for four sources of WIA funds:
adult formula funds, dislocated worker formula funds, national
emergency grant funds, and state set-aside funds for statewide
activities and rapid response activities. We collected information for
program year 2003 (July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004) because it was
the most recent year for which complete data were available. We
included questions in the survey to assess the reliability of the
financial and participant data. We also selected four states to visit-
-California, Georgia, Iowa, and Maryland--that varied in funding size
and geographic location. Within each state, we visited two local
workforce investment boards, selected to provide a mix of urban and
rural areas. At each location visited, we obtained additional
information on training policies implemented, challenges encountered,
and reliability of data systems. To assess what is known on a national
level about outcomes of those being trained, we obtained program year
2003 WIASRD data and performed tests to assess its completeness. We
also reviewed our prior reports about the reliability of the WIASRD
data and a report by Labor's Office of the Inspector General on WIA
performance outcomes. Appendix I contains a more detailed discussion of
our scope and methodology. We performed our work between June 2004 and
May 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief:
Local boards used an estimated 40 percent of the WIA funds they had
available in program year 2003 to obtain training services for WIA
participants. Nationally, local boards had a combined total of
approximately $2.4 billion in WIA funds that were available to serve
adults and dislocated workers during program year 2003 and used about
$929 million for training activities, primarily occupational classroom
training. The remaining funds pay for other program costs, including
job search assistance, case management, and supportive services, as
well as administrative costs. We estimate that 416,000 participants
received training during the year. However, because some individuals
may have received more than one type of training, this count may
include some individuals more than once. Of those trained in program
year 2003, about 323,000 participants received occupational classroom
training. Approximately 85 percent of the occupational classroom
training provided during that year was purchased through ITAs. At the
eight sites we visited, participants used ITAs to prepare them for a
wide variety of occupations, including nursing, information technology,
and truck driving. Local boards also used the flexibility provided
under WIA to offer a broad range of training-related activities, such
as work experience, internships, and skills workshops, aimed at
increasing employability but are not included in WIA's definition of
training and not paid for with training dollars. For example, about one-
half of local boards used WIA funds to offer their customers computer
lab workshops in software applications, basic keyboarding, and other
computer skills, although this learning is not defined as training
under WIA.
Most local workforce boards have developed policies to manage the use
of ITAs, but many boards have encountered challenges in trying to
implement their use. An estimated 85 percent of the local workforce
boards limited the amount of money participants can spend on training
using ITAs, and about two-thirds limited the length of time
participants can be enrolled in training. For example, the majority of
boards limited the amount participants can spend on training using ITAs
to between $3,000 and $7,000 and the length of time they can spend in
training to 2 years. In addition, more than 80 percent of the local
boards placed additional restrictions on adults and dislocated workers
seeking to use ITAs by requiring them to complete specified skill
assessments, and about 70 percent of the local boards require adults
and dislocated workers to gather additional information about the
occupation for which they desire training. For example, one board
required participants seeking ITAs to write an essay about why they
wanted a particular training. Although the vast majority of local
boards use ITAs, most have faced challenges in managing their use. For
example, nearly two-thirds of the local boards encountered lack of
performance data on providers as a challenge. Local boards we visited
stated that not having performance information on training providers
hindered their ability to determine which providers served participants
most effectively. In addition, local boards located in rural areas may
face other challenges because of the lack of nearby training providers.
Little is known on a national level about the outcomes of those being
trained because of weaknesses in the WIASRD database. Certain aspects
of WIASRD have been found to be incomplete, unverified, and not
comparable across local areas and states. Labor's Office of the
Inspector General has said there is little assurance that the states'
performance data for WIA programs are either accurate or complete
because of inadequate oversight of data collection and management.
Additionally, data generally cannot be compared across states or local
areas because Labor allows local areas some flexibility to decide how
to collect and report certain data on participant outcomes. For
example, outcome data are entered in WIASRD once a participant has left
the WIA program, but we found that local areas use different
definitions to determine when a person has officially exited from the
program. As a result, wage and employment outcomes being reported could
vary greatly, making it difficult to compare outcome data across local
areas. Labor is taking some steps to address these concerns, improve
the data collected at the national level, and assess the impact of the
program. For example, Labor has implemented a new project to validate
the performance information collected and reported under WIA. This
initiative requires states to examine the accuracy of both reports
submitted to Labor and individual data elements. However, because this
initiative is relatively new, it is too soon to tell if it will
satisfactorily resolve all data quality problems. Labor is also in the
initial stages of developing a single, streamlined reporting and record-
keeping system that would replace several databases, including WIASRD,
and could address some data issues. However, it is unclear when this
system will be implemented. Labor plans to conduct impact studies to
assess the effectiveness of the WIA program, but Labor will not begin
this process until after WIA reauthorization, thereby missing WIA's
requirement to conduct at least one study by 2005.
In its comments, Labor noted that some of our information on training
expenditures and training outcomes conflicts with its estimates. Labor
also identified additional steps being taken to address data quality.
Labor's estimate of the number of adults enrolled in training includes
only those adults reported in WIASRD who exited the program. We believe
our estimates of the amount of funds used for training and the number
of adults trained represent a more complete and accurate picture than
Labor's estimates because our estimates come directly from the local
workforce areas, include all funds spent or obligated for training, and
count all adults who received training in program year 2003, not just
those who exited the program.
Background:
WIA specifies a different funding source for each of the act's main
client groups--youth, adults, and dislocated workers.[Footnote 4] Our
report focuses on adults and dislocated workers. Once the Congress
appropriates WIA funds, the amount of money that flows to states and
local areas depends on a specific formula that takes into account
unemployment for the adult and dislocated worker funding streams, the
number of low-income individuals for the adult funding stream, and the
number of long-term unemployed for the dislocated worker funding
stream.[Footnote 5] Labor allots 100 percent of the adult funds and 80
percent of the dislocated worker funds to states. The Secretary of
Labor retains 20 percent of the dislocated worker funds in a national
reserve account to be used for National Emergency Grants,[Footnote 6]
demonstrations, and technical assistance and allots the remaining funds
to each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In
program year 2003, Labor allotted approximately $2 billion to states
for adults and dislocated workers (see app. II for a listing of program
year 2003 allotments by state). Upon receiving its allotments, each
state can set aside no more than 15 percent to support statewide
activities. These may include a variety of activities that benefit
adults, youths, and dislocated workers statewide, such as providing
assistance in the establishment and operation of one-stop centers,
developing or operating state or local management information systems,
and disseminating lists of organizations that can provide training. In
addition, each state can set aside no more than 25 percent of its
dislocated worker funds to provide rapid response services to workers
affected by layoffs and plant closings. The funds set aside by the
states to provide rapid response services are intended to help
dislocated workers transition quickly to new employment. After states
set aside funds for rapid response and for other statewide activities,
they allocate the remainder of the funds--at least 60 percent--to their
local workforce areas[Footnote 7] (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: WIA Funding Streams for Youth, Adults, and Dislocated
Workers:
[See PDF for image] --graphic text:
Stacked bar chart with three groups: two with two items and one with
four items.
Separate funding streams for programs serving youth, adults, and
dislocated workers:
Youth;
100% distributed to states by formula;
Sub-state funds distributed to local areas by formula: 85%;
Statewide activities: 15%.
Adults;
100% distributed to states by formula;
Sub-state funds distributed to local areas by formula: 85%;
Statewide activities: 15%.
Dislocated workers;
20% secretary's reserve;
National emergency grants, demonstrations and technical assistance.
Dislocated workers;
80% distributed to states by formula;
Sub-state funds distributed to local areas by formula: 60%;
Statewide activities: 15%;
State rapid response: 25%.
Source: Employment and Training Administration, and P.L. 105-220.
[End of figure]
Approximately 600 local workforce areas exist throughout the nation
(see fig. 2). Each local area has a local workforce board that
administers WIA activities within the local area, including selecting
one-stop center operators, identifying eligible training providers,
developing links with employers, and overseeing the use of funds for
employment and training activities.
Figure 2: Distribution of Local Workforce Investment Areas in Program
Year 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
WIA was intended to meet both the needs of businesses for skilled
workers and the training, education, and employment needs of
individuals. The act allows training and employment programs to be
designed and managed at the local level to meet the unique needs of
local businesses and individuals. Another aspect of the act was to
provide customers with easy access to the information and services they
needed and empower those who need training to obtain the training they
find most appropriate. One cornerstone of WIA was the one-stop concept
where information about and access to a wide array of services would be
available at a single location. At the one-stop center, customers can
get information about job openings; receive job search and placement
assistance; receive an assessment of their skill levels, aptitudes, and
abilities; and obtain information on a full array of employment-related
services, including information on local education and training
providers. Through the one-stop centers, employers also have a single
point of contact to provide information about current and future skills
needed by their workers and to list job openings.
The services typically available at one-stop centers fall into the
following categories:
* Core services. These include job search and placement assistance, the
provision of labor market information, and preliminary assessment of
skills and needs. Core services are available to all adults who come to
a one-stop center, with no eligibility requirements imposed.
* Intensive services. These include comprehensive assessments, case
management, short-term prevocational services,[Footnote 8] work
experience, and internships. Intensive services are available to
qualified adults and dislocated workers who are unable to obtain or
retain a job that leads to self-sufficiency.
* Training services. These include occupational skills training, on-
the-job training, customized training,[Footnote 9] and skill upgrading
and retraining. Training services are available to qualified adults and
dislocated workers who are unable to obtain or retain employment after
receiving at least one intensive service.[Footnote 10]
* Supportive services. These include services--such as transportation,
child care, and housing--that are necessary to enable WIA participants
to take part in WIA activities.
WIA requires the use of ITAs, which allow qualified individuals to
purchase the training they determine best for themselves. Adults and
dislocated workers use ITAs to purchase training services from eligible
providers they select in consultation with case managers. Payments from
ITAs may be made in a variety of ways, including the electronic
transfer of funds through financial institutions, vouchers, or other
appropriate methods. Payments may also be made incrementally. WIA
requires that ITAs can only be used to purchase training from programs
listed on an eligible training provider list (ETPL). Local boards, in
partnership with the state, compile this list by identifying training
providers and programs whose performance qualifies them to receive WIA
funds to train adults and dislocated workers. Good information allows
participants to make informed training choices. In this regard, WIA
requires that local boards ensure that participants have access to
performance information on training providers, including the percentage
of individuals completing their training program, the percentage of
individuals in the program who obtained jobs, and the wages earned by
these individuals.
Under certain situations, however, local boards have the option of
purchasing training without using ITAs. The three exceptions to using
ITAs are:
* if the activity is on-the-job training or customized training,
* if a local board determines an insufficient number of eligible
providers exist in the area (such as in a rural area), or:
* if a training provider has a demonstrated effectiveness in serving a
special population that face multiple barriers to employment.
To assess whether it is accomplishing its goals, WIA established a
performance measurement system for the programs directly funded by WIA-
-one that emphasized results in areas of job placement, retention,
earnings, and skill attainment[Footnote 11] (see table 1). WIA requires
states to use Unemployment Insurance wage records to track employment-
related outcomes. States submit this information to Labor in annual
reports submitted each December. States also submit quarterly
performance reports, which are due 45 days after the end of each
quarter. In addition to the performance reports, states submit their
updates for WIASRD every January. WIA also requires Labor to conduct at
least one multisite study to determine program results by the end of
fiscal year 2005.
Table 1: WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker Outcome Performance Measures:
Adult: 1. Entered employment rate; Dislocated worker: 1. Entered
employment rate.
Adult: 2. Employment retention rate at 6 months;
Dislocated worker: 2. Employment retention rate at 6 months.
Adult: 3. Average earnings change in 6 months;
Dislocated worker: 3. Earnings replacement rate in 6 months.
Adult: 4. Entered employment and credential rate;
Dislocated worker: 4. Entered employment and credential rate.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration
(ETA), Training and Employment Guidance Letter, No. 7-99 (Mar. 3,
2001).
[End of table]
Local Boards Used an Estimated 40 Percent of Available WIA Funds to
Train Program Participants:
Local boards used an estimated 40 percent of the WIA funds they had
available in program year 2003 to obtain training services for WIA
participants. Nationally, local boards had approximately $2.4 billion
in WIA funds that were available to serve adult participants during
program year 2003 and used about $929 million for training activities,
primarily occupational classroom training. The remaining funds pay for
other program costs, including job search assistance, case management,
and supportive services, as well as administrative costs. We estimate
that 416,000 WIA participants received training during the year.
However, because some individuals may have received more than one type
of training, this count may include some individuals more than once. Of
those trained in program year 2003, about 323,000 participants received
occupational classroom training, of which about 85 percent was
purchased through ITAs. Local boards also used the flexibility provided
under WIA to offer a broad range of training-related activities aimed
at increasing employability but not included in WIA's definition of
training.
An Estimated 40 Percent of Available WIA Funds Were Used for Training:
Local boards nationwide used an estimated 40 percent of their WIA funds
for training in program year 2003. During that year, local boards had
about $2.4 billion in WIA funds available to serve adults and
dislocated workers. Almost all local boards had funds from the WIA
adult and dislocated worker funding streams; in addition, many boards
had National Emergency Grants or funds from two state set-asides, the
15 percent set-aside for statewide activities and the 25 percent set-
aside for rapid response. WIA permits local boards up to 2 years to
spend each program's funding. Accordingly, to get a national picture of
available WIA funds at the local level, we defined available funds as
the combined amount of program year 2003 funds and funds carried over
from program year 2002. Of the approximate $2.4 billion in combined WIA
funds that local boards had available, about $1.8 billion (75 percent)
came from the program year 2003 allocation, while the rest consisted of
funds carried over from 2002 (see fig. 3). Allocations from the WIA
adult and WIA dislocated worker funding streams together constituted
about 80 percent of the funds local boards could use.
Figure 3: Estimated Total WIA Funds Available for Local Areas in
Program Year 2003:
[See PDF for image] --graphic text:
Stacked bar graph with five groups of two items each.
Dollars in millions.
WIA adult;
Program year 2003 funds: $782;
Carryover funds: $207.
WIA dislocated worker;
Program year 2003 funds: $681;
Carryover funds: $208.
National Emergency Grants;
Program year 2003 funds: $124;
Carryover funds: $80.
State set-asides;
Program year 2003 funds: $208;
Carryover funds: $87.
Total;
Program year 2003 funds: $1,795;
Carryover funds: $582.
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: All estimates less than or equal to $87 million in figure 3 have
margins of error exceeding plus or minus 15 percent of the value of
those estimates. See appendix I for the 95 percent confidence intervals
associated with these estimates.
[End of figure]
Of the $2.4 billion available, local boards used approximately $929
million in program year 2003 to fund training activities, representing
about 40 percent of the WIA funds that were available to serve adult
participants in the program. The remaining funds pay for other program
costs, including job search assistance, case management, and supportive
services, as well as administrative costs. We found that local boards
spent an estimated $724 million on training and obligated another $205
million.[Footnote 12] Obligations are funds local boards commit to pay
for training, but for which services have not yet been provided and
costs not yet incurred (see fig. 4).
Figure 4: Estimated Total WIA Funds Used for Training in Program Year
2003:
[See PDF for image] --graphic text:
Dollars in millions.
WIA adult;
Obligated funds: $91;
Expended funds: $328.
WIA dislocated worker;
Obligated funds: $83;
Expended funds: $249.
National Emergency Grants;
Obligated funds: $14;
Expended funds: $63.
State set-asides;
Obligated funds: $17;
Expended funds: $84.
Total WIA funds used;
Obligated funds: $205;
Expended funds: $724.
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: All estimates less than or equal to $83 million in figure 4 have
margins of error exceeding plus or minus 15 percent of the value of
those estimates. See appendix I for the 95 percent confidence intervals
associated with these estimates.
[End of figure]
Local boards used a slightly higher percentage of their WIA adult funds
(43 percent) for training than their dislocated worker and state set-
aside funds, both of which had 37 percent used for training (see fig.
5).
Figure 5: Estimated Percentage of WIA Funds Used for Training, by
Funding Source:
[See PDF for image] --graphic text:
Bar graph with five items.
WIA adult: 43%;
WIA dislocated worker: 37%;
National Emergency Grants: 39%;
State set-asides: 37%;
Total: 40%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Of the WIA dollars local boards spent on training, an estimated 79
percent was for occupational classroom training. Boards used the
remainder of the funds to pay for on-the-job training, customized
training, and other types of training, including adult basic education
and skill upgrading.
In addition to using WIA funding, many local boards also leveraged
other sources of funding to help pay the costs of training for WIA
participants.[Footnote 13] Some of these funding sources were federal
programs, including Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA),[Footnote 14] the
H-1B skill grant program,[Footnote 15] and Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF). For example, in program year 2003, one board we
visited in Maryland enrolled 49 WIA participants in training funded by
TAA. Other sources of funding came from state and local governments or
private entities. For example, at one site we visited in Georgia, the
local public school system paid for high school equivalency classes for
WIA participants, including teacher salaries, testing, and books and
materials. In addition, the local housing authority provided training
on a variety of soft skills for 600 of its clients at the one-stop
center.[Footnote 16]
WIA Participants Were Most Likely to Receive Occupational Classroom
Training:
Overall, we estimate that 416,000 WIA participants were enrolled in
training during program year 2003 and that about 323,000 participants
received occupational classroom training.[Footnote 17] In our survey,
local boards reported the number of people enrolled in each category of
training rather than the total receiving training. As a result, it is
possible that the 416,000 includes some duplication of individuals who
received more than one kind of training during that year (see table 2).
Table 2: Estimated Total Number of Instances in Which WIA Participants
Were Trained during Program Year 2003, by Category and Funding Source:
Occupational classroom training;
WIA adult: 135,901;
WIA dislocated worker: 123,139;
National Emergency Grants: 32,558;
State set-asides: 31,204;
Total: 322,802.
On-the-job training;
WIA adult: 14,671;
WIA dislocated worker: 7,863;
National Emergency Grants: 656;
State set-asides: 2,217;
Total: 25,407.
Customized training;
WIA adult: 13,424;
WIA dislocated worker: 2,193;
National Emergency Grants: 174;
State set-asides: 10,883;
Total: 26,674.
Other training;
WIA adult: 20,771;
WIA dislocated worker: 11,526;
National Emergency Grants: 2,193;
State set-asides: 6,144;
Total: 40,634.
Total;
WIA adult: 184,767;
WIA dislocated worker: 144,721;
National Emergency Grants: 35,581;
State set-asides: 50,448;
Total: 415,517.
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: All customized training estimates, all other training estimates,
and some on-the-job training estimates in table 2 have margins of error
exceeding plus or minus 15 percent of the value of those estimates. See
appendix I for the 95 confidence intervals associated with those
estimates.
[End of table]
We estimate that more than three-quarters of the training that
participants received (78 percent) was occupational classroom training
(see fig. 6). On-the-job training and customized training each
accounted for an additional 6 percent of the total training that
occurred in program year 2003, while 10 percent of training included
other activities, such as adult education, literacy classes,
entrepreneurial training, and skill upgrading.
Figure 6: Estimated WIA-Funded Training in Program Year 2003, by
Category:
[See PDF for image] --graphic text:
Pie chart with four items.
Participants in occupational classroom training: 78%;
Participants in other training: 10%;
Participants in on-the-job training: 6%;
Participants in customized training: 6%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Approximately 85 percent of the occupational classroom training
provided during program year 2003 was purchased by participants through
ITAs. At some local boards, however, specific kinds of occupational
classroom training were obtained without the use of ITAs. For example,
one local board we visited in Iowa used WIA funds to pay for classes in
typing skills at the local community college, but ITAs were not used to
pay for this training because it was short-term training that did not
result in a credential.
At the eight sites we visited, participants used ITAs to pay for
training in a wide variety of occupations. WIA regulations require that
participants select a training program directly linked to employment
opportunities. Each of these local boards told us that nursing and
other health care professions were in high demand locally, and
accordingly, participants in all eight areas sought training in health
care occupations. Other high-demand occupations at some of the local
boards we visited included information technology, truck driving,
manufacturing, and teaching. As local labor markets have changed, some
boards have developed specially tailored programs designed to mirror
shifts in labor demand. For example, one local area in California faced
massive layoffs in the high-tech industry but had a dearth of qualified
teachers in the local schools. As a result, the local board created a
program to train dislocated high-tech workers to become teachers.
Local Boards Fund Training-Related Activities and Services:
In addition to providing training activities, local boards used the
flexibility provided under WIA to offer a broad range of intensive
services, some of which are aimed at increasing job skills. These
training-related activities, including work experience, internships,
and computer skills training, are not captured in WIA's definition of
training and, therefore, not paid for with training dollars.
Accordingly, neither the amount of funding spent on these activities
nor the number of participants who benefit from them are identified in
our statistics on training. Nevertheless, these activities can play a
significant role in preparing WIA participants for successful
employment.
Although many WIA participants do not need extensive training to obtain
a job, some still need help improving a variety of skills that will
further their chances of successfully searching for and retaining a
job. Much like training, these activities are intended to increase
employability. Many are short-term activities, such as computer lab
training and other intensive skills workshops. For example,
approximately one-half of local boards use WIA funds to offer
participants computer lab training in software applications, basic
keyboarding, and other computer skills. One board we visited in Georgia
offers another type of short-term, intensive skills workshop through
its Basic Industrial Maintenance program. During this 4-week training
course, participants learn a variety of skills including the basics of
construction, plumbing, and carpentry. Other training-related
activities that are intended to increase skills but are not included in
WIA training are internships and work experience opportunities. For
example, one local board we visited in Iowa spent about $79,000 in
program year 2003 to provide internships and work experience
opportunities to 41 WIA participants.
Moreover, some boards we visited used WIA funds to pay for supportive
services, such as child care and transportation, that enable
participants to attend training. Like funding spent on training-related
activities, the cost of these supportive services is not reflected in
the amount of WIA funding that local boards spend on training. However,
these services can represent a large investment of WIA dollars. Local
boards have flexibility in whether and how they use WIA funds for
services that support training.[Footnote 18] For example, one local
board we visited in rural Iowa spent over $160,000 in program year 2003
on a wide array of supportive services for people in training,
including child care, transportation, eye exams, and glasses. Because
the area contains several correctional facilities, the board also used
a portion of these WIA funds to purchase bicycles for ex-offenders who
were attempting to reenter the workforce but had lost their driving
privileges. Another local area we visited in California spent $87,000
in supportive services during program year 2003; in addition to paying
for child care and transportation, these WIA funds paid for items
including books, uniforms, and tools, as well as services such as
fingerprinting and tuberculosis testing, which some training programs
require. Not all boards provided WIA-funded supportive services to
people in training, however. One local area we visited in Maryland did
not use WIA funding to provide supportive services to its adult
participants, although it referred those in need to other agencies for
assistance.
Local Boards Manage ITAs but Have Faced Challenges in Implementing
Them:
Most local workforce boards have developed policies to manage the use
of ITAs, but many boards have encountered challenges in trying to
implement their use. Local boards often require participants to
complete various skill assessments prior to entering training and
gather additional information on the occupation for which they desire
training. In addition, they generally limit the amount of money
participants can spend on training using ITAs and how long participants
can spend in training. Although the vast majority of local boards use
ITAs, most also said they have faced challenges in managing their use.
The challenge most frequently identified was lack of good performance
data on training providers. Local boards in rural areas face a
different challenge--lack of nearby training providers. Some boards
have identified initiatives to mitigate the challenges they face.
Most Local Boards Have Policies to Manage ITAs:
We estimate that most local boards established procedures to ensure
that any training purchased using ITAs is warranted and placed spending
limits on individual ITAs to control costs. WIA regulations require
that participants must receive at least one intensive service, such as
individual counseling and career planning, before enrolling in
training. Many local boards also require participants in the adult and
dislocated worker programs who want training to first complete
specified activities to demonstrate their need for training. For
example, local boards may require participants to complete skill
assessments or attend specific workshops.
In addition, they may require participants to gather information on the
occupation for which they want training or document their inability to
find employment (see fig. 7).
Figure 7: Estimated Percentage of Local Boards Requiring Completion of
Specified Activities for Adults and Dislocated Workers Seeking
Training:
[See PDF for image] --graphic text:
Pie chart with eight items.
Undergo skill assessments;
Adult: 86%;
Dislocated worker: 86%.
Complete workshops;
Adult: 34%;
Dislocated worker: 33%.
Gather additional information;
Adult: 70%;
Dislocated worker: 69%.
Document inability to find job;
Adult: 47%;
Dislocated worker: 50%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
More than 80 percent of the local boards require adults and dislocated
workers to complete specified skill assessments or tests before being
allowed to purchase training with ITAs. For example, three local boards
in Georgia, Kansas, and Mississippi commented that participants are
required to complete career assessments or occupational interest
inventories prior to training. A local board in New York mentioned that
staff are required to interview participants and determine whether they
are in need of training and have the skills and qualifications to
successfully participate in the training program. A local board we
visited in Georgia required participants to demonstrate an aptitude and
interest in an area before enrolling in training. Depending on how
proactive the participant is, the process can take up to 6 months
before the participant is enrolled in a training program.
Approximately 70 percent of the local boards require adults and
dislocated workers to gather additional information about the
occupation for which they want training. For example, a local board in
Arizona noted that participants must interview three people working in
their desired field; another board, in Washington, commented that
participants are required to conduct informational interviews with
employers in the occupation they wish to pursue. Similarly, three of
the local boards that we visited required participants to perform
specific tasks prior to entering training. For example, one local board
we visited in Georgia required participants to gather specific
information on training providers and then compose an essay explaining
why they chose a particular course and provider. Another board we
visited, in California, asks participants to research and disclose
information on the training they want to pursue, including the
occupation's starting wage, whether this wage is sufficient to support
them and their family, working conditions, available job openings, and
education and skill requirements. Also, a local board we visited in
Maryland requires participants seeking certain types of training, such
as on the operation of a tractor-trailer, to obtain prehire letters
that guarantee employment once training is completed.
About one-third of local boards required adults and dislocated workers
to complete workshops prior to enrolling in training. For example, a
West Virginia board noted that participants must demonstrate their soft
skills or complete a soft skills program before entering occupational
training. One of the local boards we visited in California requires
that participants attend an orientation and a soft skills workshop
prior to entering training. They also offer additional voluntary
workshops, including those in which participants explore different
vocations, complete applications, practice interviews, and perform self-
assessments. Similarly, a local board we visited in Georgia requires
participants to take a general orientation and résumé writing workshop
before being eligible for ITAs.
Approximately 85 percent of local workforce boards limit the amount of
money participants can spend on training using ITAs. An estimated 31
percent of the local boards limited ITAs to between $3,000 and $5,000
(see fig. 8). At local boards limiting ITAs, the amount of the caps
ranged from $350 at one local board to $15,000 at three local boards.
One of the local boards we visited in Maryland said that its ITA cap
had changed four times since program year 2000. The cap started at
$4,000, was then increased to $4500 because of inflation, and later
rose to $5,500 because of the increased demand for, and cost of,
information technology training. However, because of reduced WIA
funding, the board later lowered the cap to $3,000.
Figure 8: Estimated Percentage of Local Boards with Various Dollar Caps
on ITAs:
[See PDF for image] --graphic text:
Bar graph with six items.
Amount of dollar cap on ITAs: Less than $3,000;
Percentage of boards with ITA cap: 8%.
Amount of dollar cap on ITAs: $3,000-$4,999;
Percentage of boards with ITA cap: 31%.
Amount of dollar cap on ITAs: $5,000-%6,999;
Percentage of boards with ITA cap: 27%.
Amount of dollar cap on ITAs: $7,000-$8,999;
Percentage of boards with ITA cap: 12%.
Amount of dollar cap on ITAs: $9,000 or more;
Percentage of boards with ITA cap: 8%.
Amount of dollar cap on ITAs: No ITA cap;
Percentage of boards with ITA cap: 15%.
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.
[End of figure]
Rather than having a single dollar limit on ITAs, two local boards
reported having ITA caps that could vary by training program.
Specifically, a local board in Hawaii limits an ITA for any particular
training program to the cost of the least expensive provider among
those who offer equivalent programs, while a local board we visited in
Iowa limits an ITA for a particular training program to the highest
cost of obtaining that training at a state public institution.
Most of the boards that impose dollar caps on ITAs expect the amount of
the ITA to also cover the costs of books, tools, and uniforms. A number
of local boards also expect the amount of the ITA to cover the costs
for supportive services and other items, such as fees for licenses,
certifications, tests, and physical exams (see fig. 9).
Figure 9: Estimated Percentage of Local Boards Requiring Participants
to Use ITA Funds for Costs Other than Tuition:
[See PDF for image] --graphic text:
Bar graph with five items.
Type of cost: Books/supplies: 86%;
Type of cost: Tools/equipment: 65%;
Type of cost: Uniforms: 58%;
Type of cost: Supportive services: 18%;
Type of cost: Other: 22%.
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: Other includes fees for licenses, certifications, tests, and
physical exams.
[End of figure]
In addition to limiting the amount of money participants can spend on
training, an estimated two-thirds of the local boards also limit how
long participants can spend in training. The most frequent limit on
training was 2 years. Many of these local boards, however, indicated
that time limits could be waived depending on an individual's
circumstances. One of the local boards we visited in Iowa had no time
limit for training using ITAs, but encouraged shorter-term training
lasting one or two semesters, especially for dislocated workers,
because of the limited period for collecting unemployment insurance.
The use of particular training providers varied among the local boards
we visited. For example, in program year 2003, one local board we
visited in California used 48 private schools as training providers for
305 participants and 3 community colleges for 42 participants. This
local board also used 15 4-year colleges for 202 participants. The
majority of these participants were former high-tech workers being
trained to become teachers. A local board we visited in Georgia relied
heavily on private, proprietary schools, using them for about 1,000
participants each year. The board believes these schools are more
flexible than other training providers and offer a wide array of
training courses. On the other hand, a local board we visited in Iowa
used community colleges for 90 percent of the 246 ITAs issued in
program year 2003.[Footnote 19] Local boards responding to our survey
reported that 37 percent of the ITAs issued in program year 2003 were
used at proprietary schools and 35 percent were used at community
colleges. The remainder were used at various providers, including 4-
year colleges, public vocational and technical schools, and community
based-organizations.
In December 2004, Mathematica Policy Research issued an interim report
concluding that the way ITAs are administered influences the likelihood
of participants requesting counseling or receiving ITAs.[Footnote 20]
The study also found that different approaches to administering ITAs
appeared to have a limited effect on participants' training choices.
Labor funded the 3-year study to assess how different approaches to
administering ITAs affect training choices, employment and earnings
outcomes, returns on investment, and customer satisfaction. Eight sites
were included in the study. These sites were located in or around
Atlanta, Georgia; Bridgeport, Connecticut; Charlotte, North Carolina;
North Cook County, Illinois; Jacksonville, Florida; and Phoenix,
Arizona.[Footnote 21] Mathematica's study results are not generalizable
beyond these eight sites. A later report by Mathematica will present an
analysis of how the ITA approaches affect additional outcomes,
including training completion, customer satisfaction, and employment
and earnings after training, as well as an analysis of the return on
the investment in training.
Local Boards Face Challenges in Implementing ITAs:
Most local boards faced some challenges in their efforts to implement
ITAs, and local boards in rural areas face a unique challenge. The
majority of local boards encountered as challenges the lack of
performance data on training providers, the timing of training being
offered, being able to get new training providers on the eligible
training provider list (ETPL), and the ability to link the ITAs with
economic development strategies (see table 3). A few local boards have
found ways to mitigate some of these challenges.
Table 3: Challenges Encountered by Local Boards:
Challenge: Lack of quality data on provider performance;
Estimated percentage of local boards encountering challenge[A]: 65%.
Challenge: Timing of training;
Estimated percentage of local boards encountering challenge[A]: 60%.
Challenge: Getting new providers on ETPL;
Estimated percentage of local boards encountering challenge[A]: 54%.
Challenge: Linking ITA system with local economic and business
strategies;
Estimated percentage of local boards encountering challenge[A]: 52%.
Challenge: Lack of providers on ETPL offering training in high demand
occupations;
Estimated percentage of local boards encountering challenge[A]: 44%.
Challenge: Communication with training providers to monitor participant
progress;
Estimated percentage of local boards encountering challenge[A]: 42%.
Challenge: Clients choosing training in low demand or low wage
occupations;
Estimated percentage of local boards encountering challenge[A]: 42%.
Challenge: Management and tracking of obligations and expenditures for
training;
Estimated percentage of local boards encountering challenge[A]: 32%.
Challenge: Lack of qualified providers;
Estimated percentage of local boards encountering challenge[A]: 32%.
Challenge: Lack of local control over participant's selection of
training provider;
Estimated percentage of local boards encountering challenge[A]: 27.
Challenge: Federal monitoring and reporting of local and state
spending;
Estimated percentage of local boards encountering challenge[A]: 27%.
Challenge: Getting providers off the ETPL;
Estimated percentage of local boards encountering challenge[A]: 24%.
Challenge: Formulating ITA policies at the local level;
Estimated percentage of local boards encountering challenge[A]: 22%.
Challenge: Not enough guidance from Labor on implementing ITAs;
Estimated percentage of local boards encountering challenge[A]: 21%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] We classified challenges as circumstances that local boards
reported encountering to a moderate, great, or very great extent.
[End of table]
Nearly two-thirds of the local workforce boards encountered the lack of
performance data on training providers as a challenge. For example, a
local board in Wisconsin commented that the lack of consistent data on
training providers reduces the value of the ETPL to local boards. A
local board in Missouri noted that one of the greatest challenges lies
in not having reliable information regarding the quality and relevance
of the training being offered by training providers. The board further
stated that the state's report card containing performance information
on training providers in Missouri was incomplete or unavailable. Local
boards we visited in California and Iowa said that a statewide report
card on training provider performance did not exist. In lieu of a
statewide report card, the California boards tracked training provider
performance themselves, while the Iowa boards relied upon informal
feedback about provider performance.
Approximately 60 percent of the local boards encountered the timing of
the training offered by providers as a challenge. For example, two
local boards we visited in Georgia and Iowa said that some participants
are unable to attend training programs that are offered only during a
regular academic schedule. The Iowa board explained that some
participants who have to wait too long for a training program to begin
may have their unemployment insurance benefits run out before the
training can be completed. On the other hand, some local boards have
found solutions to deal with this issue. For example, a local board in
Washington commented that it purchased classroom group training to
offer more flexibility as to when training will be offered and to
satisfy the demand for particular training. Similarly, a local board in
Massachusetts noted it persuaded local technical high schools to offer
programs at night, thereby resulting in greater availability of
training in trade-related fields that are in high labor demand. A local
board we visited in Maryland developed close relationships with area
community colleges that now schedule occupational training outside the
regular academic calendar.
More than half the boards faced getting new providers on the ETPL as a
challenge. This has been a long-standing concern. We reported in 2001
that according to training providers, the data collection burden
resulting from participation in WIA can be significant and may
discourage willingness to participate under WIA as training
providers.[Footnote 22] Labor has heard these concerns from training
providers and has approved waivers for 30 states. These waivers, in
effect, give states additional time to address data collection
challenges. However, getting training providers, particularly community
colleges, to participate in the ETPL remains a concern for some local
boards. For example, local boards in California, Indiana,
Massachusetts, and Michigan noted that some providers, community
colleges in particular, are reluctant to participate in the ETPL. A
local board that we visited in California elaborated on this point,
stating that community colleges in its area are operating at full
capacity and do not need WIA dollars or participants and, therefore,
are not interested in getting on the ETPL. Some local boards are
finding ways to encourage providers to participate. For example, one
local board in Massachusetts has been working collaboratively with
other boards throughout the state to meet with key figures in the
community college system to provide information, consultation, and
feedback. Two local boards we visited in Iowa and Maryland have
developed strong relationships with the 16 community colleges in their
areas, each of which is on state lists. Another local board we visited
in California conducts regional ETPL workshops with training providers
and shares ideas with other local boards in the surrounding areas.
More than half of the local boards found linking ITAs with local
economic and business development strategies to be a challenge. Several
local boards provided different examples of why they found it difficult
to provide participants with training in high-demand occupations in
their area. The area around one local board we visited in California
faced a nursing shortage, but nearby training for nurses was difficult
to obtain. Some area community colleges were opting not to provide
nursing training because they could not recoup the costs of operating
them. A local board we visited in Georgia also said that keeping up
with businesses' needs is a challenge and noted that some information
technology sector-based training courses are not always available.
Other local boards identified some initiatives they are pursuing to
strengthen links with economic development. For example:
* A local board in Michigan partners with a local technical training
center to develop intensive, short-term certificate programs in high-
skill, high-wage, and high-demand fields. The technical center is
operated by a local community college but offers non-credit certificate
programs responsive to business and community needs.
* A local board in Ohio works closely with the local Chambers of
Commerce and economic development partners to formulate training
programs that are based on employer demands. Specifically, if the board
hears that a group of employers have a skill need, then the board will
develop the appropriate training program with a service provider.
* A local board in Texas uses an industry cluster analysis report to
focus attention on specific industries and then targets funds for
training in these sectors. Training institutions must prepare industry-
approved training curriculums in order to have programs approved by the
local board and to have ITAs issued to participants for training.
* A local board in Washington partnered with representatives from local
education, economic development, and government to develop a shared
blueprint for economic development and training around eight high-
demand industry clusters.
A number of local boards representing rural locations mentioned that
the requirement to use ITAs to purchase training from providers on the
ETPL presented a different problem for them from their counterparts in
urban areas. Local boards in Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, North
Carolina, and Utah all mentioned that participants in rural areas have
few nearby training providers from which to choose. Additionally, local
boards in Kansas and Montana noted that being located in a rural area
with limited providers makes dealing with ITAs burdensome. A local
board that we visited in rural California applied for and received a
waiver from using ITAs. The board directly contracts with a community
college for a 2-year program to train participants to become registered
nurses and an 18-month program to train participants to become licensed
vocational nurses. Through April 2004, 73 participants have completed
the nursing programs, and according to the board, all were employed in
their respective fields.
Little Is Known about Outcomes of Those Being Trained because of
Weaknesses in Data Collected:
Little is known on a national level about the outcomes of those being
trained. Certain aspects of WIASRD have been found to be incomplete and
unverified. Additionally, data generally cannot be compared across
states or local areas because of differences in data definitions. Labor
is taking some steps that may address these concerns and plans to
complete an evaluation that will measure the overall impact of the WIA
program.
Concerns Remain That Data Collected Are Unreliable:
Our analysis of program year 2003 WIASRD has shown that the database
does not contain information for a large number of data elements. It is
unclear if these values are missing because Unemployment Insurance wage
records are not available or because they simply were not entered into
the database by officials. This finding reaffirms issues that have been
raised previously about the quality of data that Labor uses to assess
program performance. Our 2004 report found that performance data
submitted by states in quarterly and annual reports were not
sufficiently reliable to determine outcomes for the WIA programs.
[Footnote 23] Labor's Office of Inspector General (OIG) raised the same
concerns in 2002 by noting that because of inadequate oversight of data
collection and management, little assurance exists that the states'
performance data for all WIA programs are either accurate or
complete.[Footnote 24] OIG's report found that of the 12 local areas
examined, none had adequately documented procedures for validating
participant performance data. Similarly, none of the four states
examined had sufficient procedures to ensure the accuracy of their
reported performance data. At the time, OIG recommended that states use
a statistical sampling method for validating reported data.
Because of questions about the comparability of data elements, states'
performance data are of limited value for national comparisons, or even
comparisons within a single state. Labor allows local areas to exercise
some flexibility in determining how to collect and report certain
performance data on participants. For example, while local areas
collect data on a participant who leaves the program, they use
different methods to determine when a person has officially exited from
the program. WIASRD guidelines define participants as having exited the
program on the last date they received WIA services. Labor allows two
ways to define exit: (1) at the point of case closure or (2) when the
participant has not received any services or training for more than 90
days and is not scheduled for future services. We found that local area
definitions differ from this and from each other. For example, one
local board we visited defines exit as occurring when participants are
finished with their WIA services; another board defines exit when
participants have found a new job and the wages for their new job are
considered acceptable (regardless of the number of days that have
passed since their last service). Wage and employment outcomes under
these different circumstances would vary greatly, making it difficult
to compare outcome data across local areas. In a prior report, we also
noted the data are not comparable on what constitutes a credential--
whether it is the attainment of a certified skill or of a degree.
[Footnote 25] Labor allows states and local areas to determine what
constitutes a credential.
Labor Is Taking Actions to Improve Data and Assess Impact of Program:
Labor is taking some steps to address data quality concerns and improve
the data used at the national level. This includes implementing a new
project to validate the performance information collected and reported
under WIA. The data validation initiative covers both the accuracy of
reports submitted to Labor on program activity and performance outcomes
and the accuracy of individual data elements. The report validation
checks the accuracy of states' software used to calculate the
performance reports submitted to Labor. For example, if a state
reports, for a particular time frame, that 100 adults found employment
after they received services, the validation software searches through
the state's electronic records to ensure that 100 records are found
that match these criteria. Data element validation, on the other hand,
evaluates the accuracy of the participant data used to generate reports
submitted to Labor. The process compares selected information from a
sample of participant exit records with the original paperwork that
contained this information. Data element validation results in an
estimate of the error rate for each data element that has been selected
for validation.
While Labor provides guidelines for the data validation, states are
responsible for executing the initiative. Program year 2003 is the
first year states have completed the process, and Labor plans to review
state results and start setting acceptable standards for error rates.
Eventually, Labor plans to hold states accountable for meeting accuracy
standards. Once these accuracy standards are in place, states failing
to meet the standards may lose eligibility for incentive awards or, in
cases with significant deviations from the standards, may be
sanctioned. Because this initiative is relatively new, it is too soon
to tell if it will satisfactorily resolve all data quality problems
associated with WIASRD outcome measures--but it is a step toward
addressing these concerns.
Labor is also in the initial stages of developing a single, streamlined
reporting and record-keeping system that will replace a series of
databases, including WIASRD, and may address some concerns about data
quality. The system, formally called the ETA Management Information and
Longitudinal Evaluation (EMILE), would replace the current data
collection and reporting requirements for 12 employment and training
programs. The goal of the new system is to allow for consistent,
comparable analysis across Labor's employment and training programs,
using the same definitions for specific measures. These definitions,
known as common measures, are to be implemented July 1, 2005, well
before EMILE is implemented. [Footnote 26] A feasibility analysis on
the EMILE proposal, which will provide information on next steps, is in
the planning stages and should be completed by December 2005, but it is
unclear how soon EMILE will be implemented.
Labor has plans to meet the requirement that it conduct at least one
multisite study to determine the general effectiveness of the WIA
program and the specific impacts of WIA services on the community and
participants involved. WIA requires Labor to conduct at least one
multisite evaluation using a control group by the end of fiscal year
2005. However, as noted in a prior report, Labor will not meet this
deadline. [Footnote 27] Labor is waiting for WIA reauthorization to
begin the evaluation, and will likely wait until the second year after
reauthorization to commission the study. Labor anticipates it will take
at least 5 years to complete the first evaluation.
Concluding Observations:
WIA represented a fundamental shift for workforce development because
it attempted to significantly change how employment and training
services were provided and because it provided considerable latitude to
those implementing WIA at the state and local levels, yet little is
known about the impacts of these changes. In program year 2003, local
workforce boards used a substantial amount of WIA funds to train a
large number of individuals. During these times of increasingly tight
federal budgets, it is important to know what types of training are the
most successful and how the outcomes from training compare with
outcomes from other services. We previously recommended that Labor take
actions to improve data quality and to conduct an impact evaluation of
WIA services.[Footnote 28] While Labor is taking steps to address the
accuracy of data contained in WIASRD, reliable information is not yet
available on a national level as to the outcomes of those being
trained. In addition, Labor will likely wait until 2007 to conduct the
multisite impact evaluation required by WIA. Our findings reaffirm the
need for a continued focus on resolving reported data quality issues
and determining what services are the most successful.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to Labor for review and comment. In
its comments, Labor acknowledged that the WIA reporting system
currently has limited information on training expenditures and training
outcomes, but noted that some of our information conflicts with their
estimates of these activities. In particular, Labor states the
Administration's estimate of the amount of WIA funds spent on training
is lower than the 40 percent that we estimate was used for training in
program year 2003. In addition, Labor estimates adult training
enrollments to be roughly 200,000. We agree with Labor that the WIA
reporting system has limited reliable information. As a result, we went
directly to the local workforce boards to obtain as complete a picture
as possible on the extent to which WIA funds were used for training and
how many adults were trained in program year 2003. Our information
differs from Labor's estimates in two ways. First, our report indicates
that 40 percent of WIA funds were used for training in program year
2003. We define funds used for training to include funds spent as well
as funds obligated. As shown in the report, of the approximately $929
million used for training in program year 2003, about $724 million was
actually spent and another $205 million was obligated. Second, Labor's
estimate of 200,000 adults enrolled in training includes only those
adults reported in WIASRD who exited from the program. Our estimate of
416,000 comes directly from the local workforce areas that provided the
training and includes the total number of adults who received training
in program year 2003, including those who had not exited from the
program. We believe our estimates of the amount of WIA funds used for
training and the number of adults trained represent a more complete and
accurate picture than Labor's estimates because we included all funds
used for training in program year 2003, whether they were spent or
obligated, and counted all adults who received training in program year
2003, not just those who exited the program.
Regarding our discussion on data quality, Labor stated that it
appreciates that we recognize the steps taken to improve data quality
through data validation and noted that it has provided states with the
software, handbooks, user guides, and technical assistance necessary to
develop reports and document validation. Labor commented that it plans
to continue supporting data validation during the transition to common
measures and is currently revising the software and related materials
to match the new reporting requirements. In addition, Labor stated that
in the coming months it will be publishing proposed revisions to the
WIASRD in the Federal Register. Labor also has issued guidance
standardizing the definition of "exit" for purposes of assessing
program performance across all programs implementing common measures.
Labor said that states will begin implementing the change on July 1,
2005, and believes that this will improve the comparability of WIA
outcome data. We commend Labor's efforts to improve data quality and
acknowledge that these actions are a step in the right direction to
having a reporting system that contains complete and accurate
information.
Labor also provided technical comments that we incorporated where
appropriate. Labor's entire comments are reproduced in appendix III.
We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, 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.
A list of related GAO products is included at the end of this report.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or at nilsens@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of:
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Other contacts and staff acknowledgments are
listed in appendix IV.
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) to what extent Workforce Investment Act
(WIA) funds have been used for training, (2) how local workforce
investment boards have managed the use of Individual Training Accounts
(ITA) and what challenges they have encountered, and (3) what is known
at the national level about the outcomes of those receiving training.
To address these issues, we conducted a Web-based survey of all local
workforce investment boards in the 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico, and visited eight local boards located in 4 states. We
conducted our work from June 2004 to May 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Web-Based Survey:
To determine the extent to which program year 2003 WIA funds were used
for training, how local workforce boards manage ITAs, and what
challenges they have encountered, we conducted a Web-based survey of
the local workforce investment boards for the 590 local workforce
investment areas in existence in program year 2003. Program year 2003
was the most recent year for which complete data were available. The
basis for our list of local workforce investment boards was the
directory from the National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB). To
view the survey, go to www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-807SP.
Prior to administering the survey, we pretested the content and format
of the questionnaire with a number of local workforce investment boards
to determine whether (1) the survey questions were clear, (2) the terms
used were precise, (3) respondents were able to provide the financial
and client data we were seeking, and (4) the questions were unbiased.
We made changes to the content and format of the final questionnaire
based on pretest results.
The surveys were conducted using self-administered electronic
questionnaires posted on the Web. We received completed surveys from
428 boards (a 73 percent response rate).
We attempted to assess the reliability of the responses to survey
questions that asked for quantitative data relating to WIA funds used
for training and numbers of clients served. We included questions in
the survey that asked whether or not the local board carried out
certain practices or procedures to ensure that databases or data
systems used to produce the financial and client information we asked
for were in fact reliable. These questions asked (1) if there were
written procedures that defined data elements or specified how data
were collected; (2) if routine internal reviews of data were conducted
to check for errors in completeness, accuracy, or reasonableness; (3)
if periodic monitoring or audits of the data were conducted to check
for errors in completeness, accuracy, or reasonableness; and (4)
whether or not routine quality control procedures were in place such as
data verification to source documents or computer edit checks. We asked
these four questions separately for both the financial data and the
client data obtained in the survey. If the local area responded that it
had used at least two of the four practices or procedures to monitor
the quality of the financial and participant data provided in their
survey, we either accepted the responses or called for clarification,
depending on which procedures were used.[Footnote 29] If the local
board responded that three or four of these practices or procedures
were not used for either financial or client data, we did not use those
data. In cases where the local board responded that it was not sure
whether these practices or procedures had been carried out or did not
answer three or more of the four questions, we telephoned the board to
try to determine whether or not it had actually carried out these
practices or procedures. In cases where we determined that the data
actually did meet our data reliability criteria, based on these
telephone calls, we accepted the responses. On the basis of the
criteria, we accepted the financial data for all 428 of the completed
surveys and we accepted the participant data for 425 of the completed
surveys. In the three cases where we did not accept the participant
data, we did retain and use responses from other sections of the
survey. In addition to including the questions on data reliability in
the survey, we also checked the consistency of responses on a number of
survey questions that asked for numeric data. On the basis of these
consistency checks, some responses were dropped from our analysis.
We generated estimates to the population of 590 boards by treating the
428 responding boards as a simple random sample. We chose to treat the
428 responding boards as a simple random sample from the population of
590 based on an analysis of the differences between the responding
boards and the nonresponding boards.
To determine if there were any significant differences between the
responding boards and the nonresponding boards, we contacted officials
in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to obtain
the number of unemployed individuals for each local area. We obtained
this number for all 590 boards in the population. We used this
information to determine whether sample-based estimates of this
characteristic generated from the responding boards compared favorably
with the known population values. The known population value of the
number of unemployed individuals fell within the 95 percent confidence
interval surrounding the sample-based estimate. On the basis of these
results, and our assessment that the number of unemployed individuals
is correlated with key items we were estimating, we concluded that
treating the 428 responding boards as a simple random sample is not
likely to introduce significant bias into estimates. Some of the 428
responding boards did not provide responses to all of the items in the
survey. To improve our estimates, we employed a nearest neighbor hot
deck imputation methodology to account for nonresponse of numerical
items.
Because we decided to treat the respondents as a simple random sample
of boards, our results are estimates of the population of 590 boards
and thus are subject to sampling errors that are associated with
samples of this size and type. Our confidence in the precision of the
results from this sample is expressed in 95 percent confidence
intervals, which are expected to include the actual results in 95
percent of samples of this type. We calculated confidence intervals
based on methods that are appropriate for a simple random sample. All
percentage estimates have margins of error of plus or minus 5
percentage points or less. All numerical estimates other than
percentages have relative margins of error of plus or minus 15 percent
or less, except for those shown in table 4. For example, an estimate of
$1,000,000 with a relative margin of error of plus or minus 15 percent
would have a 95 percent confidence interval of $850,000 to $1,150,000.
Table 4: 95 Percent Confidence Intervals for Numeric Estimates with
Margins of Error Exceeding 15 Percent of the Value of Those Estimates:
Question: National Emergency Grant (NEG) Carryover program funds;
Estimate: $80,000,000;
Lower bound: $58,000,000;
Upper bound: $103,000,000.
Question: State set-asides carryover funds;
Estimate: $87,000,000;
Lower bound: $66,000,000;
Upper bound: $108,000,000.
Question: Dislocated Worker funds obligated for training;
Estimate: $83,000,000;
Lower bound: $70,000,000;
Upper bound: $96,000,000.
Question: NEG funds obligated for training;
Estimate: $14,000,000;
Lower bound: $10,000,000;
Upper bound: $18,000,000.
Question: NEG funds expended on training;
Estimate: $63,000,000;
Lower bound: $51,000,000;
Upper bound: $74,000,000.
Question: State set-asides funds obligated for training;
Estimate: $17,000,000;
Lower bound: $14,000,000;
Upper bound: $21,000,000.
Question: NEG participants in on-the-job training;
Estimate: $656;
Lower bound: $441;
Upper bound: $871.
Question: State set-asides participants in on-the-job training;
Estimate: $2,217;
Lower bound: $1,744;
Upper bound: $2,690.
Question: Adult participants in customized training;
Estimate: $13,424;
Lower bound: $9,584;
Upper bound: $17,264.
Question: Dislocated Worker participants in customized training;
Estimate: $2,193;
Lower bound: $976;
Upper bound: $3,410.
Question: NEG participants in customized training;
Estimate: $174;
Lower bound: $71;
Upper bound: $277.
Question: State set-asides participants in customized training;
Estimate: $10,883;
Lower bound: $8,329;
Upper bound: $13,437.
Question: Total participants in customized training;
Estimate: $26,674;
Lower bound: $21,432;
Upper bound: $31,916.
Question: Adult participants in other training;
Estimate: $20,771;
Lower bound: $10,371;
Upper bound: $31,172.
Question: Dislocated Worker participants in other training;
Estimate: $11,526;
Lower bound: $4,973;
Upper bound: $18,078.
Question: NEG participants in other training;
Estimate: $2,193;
Lower bound: $895;
Upper bound: $3,492.
Question: State set-asides participants in other training;
Estimate: $6,144;
Lower bound: $3,956;
Upper bound: $8,332.
Question: Total participants in other training;
Estimate: $40,634;
Lower bound: $23,542;
Upper bound: $57,726.
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: All dollar amounts are rounded to millions.
[End of table]
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce other
kinds of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For
example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in
the sources of information that are available to respondents, or in how
the data are entered into a database or were analyzed can introduce
unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in the
development of the questionnaire, the data collection, and the data
analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, social
science survey specialists designed the questionnaire in collaboration
with GAO staff with subject matter expertise. Then, the draft
questionnaire was pretested with a number of local boards to ensure
that the questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to
comprehend. As mentioned above, we included additional questions to
determine whether certain practices or procedures had been carried out
on the financial and client data. When the data were analyzed, a
second, independent analyst checked all computer programs. Since this
was a Web-based survey, respondents entered their answers directly into
the electronic questionnaire. This eliminated the need to have the data
keyed into a database, thus removing an additional source of error.
Site Visits:
We used two criteria in selecting site visit locations. First, we
stratified the 48 continental states and the District of Columbia into
four categories according to amount of program year 2003 adult and
dislocated worker formula funds to reflect states with varying funding
sizes. The four categories were less than $10 million, $10 million to
$25 million, over $25 million to $50 million, and over $50 million. We
selected one from each category. Second, we chose geographically
dispersed states to help illuminate regional differences in
implementing ITAs. From within each state, we judgmentally selected two
local boards to provide a mix of urban and rural areas (see table 5).
Table 5: Locations Selected for Site Visits:
Local workforce area: Merced County;
Type: Rural;
City: Merced;
State: California.
Local workforce area: North Valley Job Training Consortium (NOVA);
Type: Urban;
City: Sunnyvale;
State: California.
Local workforce area: Atlanta Regional Workforce Board (ARWB);
Type: Mixed;
City: Atlanta;
State: Georgia.
Local workforce area: City of Atlanta Workforce Development Agency;
Type: Urban;
City: Atlanta;
State: Georgia.
Local workforce area: Region 16;
Type: Rural;
City: Burlington;
State: Iowa.
Local workforce area: Region 9;
Type: Urban;
City: Davenport;
State: Iowa.
Local workforce area: Baltimore County;
Type: Urban;
City: Towson;
State: Maryland.
Local workforce area: Western Maryland;
Type: Rural;
City: Hagerstown;
State: Maryland.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
At each location visited, we obtained general information about the
local workforce area and additional information on WIA funding, local
training policies implemented, challenges encountered, innovative
practices, and reliability of data systems. To increase our confidence
in the reliability of the data we gathered from our survey, we
interviewed each local board we visited about data monitoring and
quality control procedures and policies with respect to their financial
and participant databases. We also asked the local boards we visited to
show us samples of records in their databases and to trace them to
source documents. We generally found their data quality processes and
procedures to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report.
Assessment of WIASRD:
To determine whether the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record
Data (WIASRD) might be a viable source of data for outcomes of training
participants, we reviewed our prior reports about the reliability of
the WIASRD data and a report by Labor's Office of the Inspector General
on WIA performance outcomes. We also performed electronic tests of the
program year 2003 WIASRD data to check for missing values. The
variables analyzed included employment after first, third, and fifth
quarters after exit quarter, and type of credential attained. Missing
data due to unemployment insurance wage data lags were taken under
consideration. On the basis of our analysis, 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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Summary of Adult and Dislocated Worker Formula Funds for
Program Year 2003:
State: Alabama;
Adult allotment: $15,735,991;
Dislocated worker allotment: $19,648,431;
Total: $35,384,422.
State: Alaska;
Adult allotment: $3,074,377;
Dislocated worker allotment: $3,532,589;
Total: $6,606,966.
State: Arizona;
Adult allotment: $16,031,216;
Dislocated worker allotment: $19,236,076;
Total: $35,267,292.
State: Arkansas;
Adult allotment: $8,471,046;
Dislocated worker allotment: $8,381,623;
Total: $16,852,669.
State: California;
Adult allotment: $127,752,492;
Dislocated worker allotment: $181,115,296;
Total: $308,867,788.
State: Colorado;
Adult allotment: $6,355,326;
Dislocated worker allotment: $12,644,518;
Total: $18,999,844.
State: Connecticut;
Adult allotment: $5,139,126;
Dislocated worker allotment: $6,545,965;
Total: $11,685,091.
State: Delaware;
Adult allotment: $2,230,852;
Dislocated worker allotment: $1,619,829;
Total: $3,850,681.
State: District of Columbia;
Adult allotment: $3,029,095;
Dislocated worker allotment: $3,412,007;
Total: $6,441,102.
State: Florida;
Adult allotment: $42,307,802;
Dislocated worker allotment: $56,526,693;
Total: $98,834,495.
State: Georgia;
Adult allotment: $16,339,645;
Dislocated worker allotment: $19,872,747;
Total: $36,212,392.
State: Hawaii;
Adult allotment: $4,153,045;
Dislocated worker allotment: $3,507,793;
Total: $7,660,838.
State: Idaho;
Adult allotment: $3,478,699;
Dislocated worker allotment: $4,600,066;
Total: $8,078,765.
State: Illinois;
Adult allotment: $43,313,151;
Dislocated worker allotment: $63,671,542;
Total: $106,984,693.
State: Indiana;
Adult allotment: $11,927,202;
Dislocated worker allotment: $18,667,803;
Total: $30,595,005.
State: Iowa;
Adult allotment: $3,463,590;
Dislocated worker allotment: $4,733,474;
Total: $8,197,064.
State: Kansas;
Adult allotment: $5,201,245;
Dislocated worker allotment: $5,859,682;
Total: $11,060,927.
State: Kentucky;
Adult allotment: $14,994,952;
Dislocated worker allotment: $15,324,618;
Total: $30,319,570.
State: Louisiana;
Adult allotment: $20,489,917;
Dislocated worker allotment: $22,106,456;
Total: $42,596,373.
State: Maine;
Adult allotment: $2,518,154;
Dislocated worker allotment: $2,406,018;
Total: $4,924,172.
State: Maryland;
Adult allotment: $11,088,755;
Dislocated worker allotment: $13,818,649;
Total: $24,907,404.
State: Massachusetts;
Adult allotment: $9,103,791;
Dislocated worker allotment: $16,275,735;
Total: $25,379,526.
State: Michigan;
Adult allotment: $37,251,688;
Dislocated worker allotment: $49,051,997;
Total: $86,303,685.
State: Minnesota;
Adult allotment: $8,412,429;
Dislocated worker allotment: $10,814,167;
Total: $19,226,596.
State: Mississippi;
Adult allotment: $12,275,609;
Dislocated worker allotment: $14,986,889;
Total: $27,262,498.
State: Missouri;
Adult allotment: $15,184,213;
Dislocated worker allotment: $17,356,406;
Total: $32,540,619.
State: Montana;
Adult allotment: $3,180,736;
Dislocated worker allotment: $2,068,283;
Total: $5,249,019.
State: Nebraska;
Adult allotment: $2,230,852;
Dislocated worker allotment: $2,876,482;
Total: $5,107,334.
State: Nevada;
Adult allotment: $5,454,619;
Dislocated worker allotment: $9,336,077;
Total: $14,790,696.
State: New Hampshire;
Adult allotment: $2,230,852;
Dislocated worker allotment: $2,491,345;
Total: $4,722,197.
State: New Jersey;
Adult allotment: $20,367,136;
Dislocated worker allotment: $29,967,785;
Total: $50,334,921.
State: New Mexico;
Adult allotment: $7,517,971;
Dislocated worker allotment: $7,051,503;
Total: $14,569,474.
State: New York;
Adult allotment: $64,530,126;
Dislocated worker allotment: $85,269,181;
Total: $149,799,307.
State: North Carolina;
Adult allotment: $25,708,051;
Dislocated worker allotment: $43,355,653;
Total: $69,063,704.
State: North Dakota;
Adult allotment: $2,230,852;
Dislocated worker allotment: $946,647;
Total: $3,177,499.
State: Ohio;
Adult allotment: $37,225,801;
Dislocated worker allotment: $39,094,488;
Total: $76,320,289.
State: Oklahoma;
Adult allotment: $7,232,422;
Dislocated worker allotment: $6,326,289;
Total: $13,558,711.
State: Oregon;
Adult allotment: $14,830,033;
Dislocated worker allotment: $25,631,266;
Total: $40,461,299.
State: Pennsylvania;
Adult allotment: $31,676,565;
Dislocated worker allotment: $44,790,835;
Total: $76,467,400.
State: Puerto Rico;
Adult allotment: $41,665,749;
Dislocated worker allotment: $36,808,705;
Total: $78,474,454.
State: Rhode Island;
Adult allotment: $2,230,852;
Dislocated worker allotment: $2,571,482;
Total: $4,802,334.
State: South Carolina;
Adult allotment: $13,557,999;
Dislocated worker allotment: $17,614,232;
Total: $31,172,231.
State: South Dakota;
Adult allotment: $2,230,852;
Dislocated worker allotment: $1,272,804;
Total: $3,503,656.
State: Tennessee;
Adult allotment: $17,271,017;
Dislocated worker allotment: $17,675,156;
Total: $34,946,173.
State: Texas;
Adult allotment: $74,133,194;
Dislocated worker allotment: $91,170,377;
Total: $165,303,571.
State: Utah;
Adult allotment: $3,515,501;
Dislocated worker allotment: $6,438,510;
Total: $9,954,011.
State: Vermont;
Adult allotment: $2,230,852;
Dislocated worker allotment: $1,293,147;
Total: $3,523,999.
State: Virginia;
Adult allotment: $13,242,958;
Dislocated worker allotment: $13,971,928;
Total: $27,214,886.
State: Washington;
Adult allotment: $25,736,856;
Dislocated worker allotment: $39,224,868;
Total: $64,961,724.
State: West Virginia;
Adult allotment: $8,053,562;
Dislocated worker allotment: $6,914,091;
Total: $14,967,653.
State: Wisconsin;
Adult allotment: $12,501,089;
Dislocated worker allotment: $19,319,871;
Total: $31,820,960.
State: Wyoming;
Adult allotment: $2,230,852;
Dislocated worker allotment: $951,173;
Total: $3,182,025.
Total;
Adult allotment: $892,340,757;
Dislocated worker allotment: $1,150,149,247;
Total: $2,042,490,004.
Source: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.
Note: Amounts identified reflect the adult and dislocated worker
program year 2003 funds after the 0.59 percent rescission. Totals
exclude the seven outlying areas (American Samoa, Guam, Marshall
Islands, Micronesia, Northern Mariana, Palau, and Virgin Islands).
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training:
Washington, D.C. 20210:
JUN 22 2005:
Mr. Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G. Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled, "Workforce Investment Act:
Substantial Funds are Used for Training, but Little is Known Nationally
About Training Outcomes" (GAO-05-650). We understand that it was
necessary for GAO to make some assumptions in evaluating information
for this report because the WIA reporting system currently has limited
official information on training expenditures and training outcomes.
Some of those assumptions, however, conflict with our own evaluation of
these activities, and we do have several comments about certain
recommendations in the report.
The report estimates that approximately 40 percent of WIA funds are
spent on training. According to Administration estimates, the
percentage is lower. In fact, we believe that the percentage of funds
expended on training, and the number of training enrollments, should be
significantly higher. Both can be greatly increased through program
innovation and efficiencies. We estimated training enrollments when
developing proposals for the WIA reauthorization and found that roughly
200,000 adults received training services in Program Year 2003 through
the WIA and Wagner-Peyser formula dollars. The President, in fact, has
challenged the workforce investment system to double the number of
individuals trained, from 200,000 to 400,000. This effort can be
accomplished by delivering training opportunities through new Community-
Based Job Training Grants, which would generate an estimated 100,000
enrollments, and through reforms of the workforce investment system,
which will generate funding for another 100,000 training enrollments.
Of the roughly $4 billion currently expended on the WIA Adult, WIA
Dislocated Worker, WIA Youth and Wagner-Peyser Employment Service
programs, $1.5 billion is spent on "infrastructure" as reported by the
states. Of this infrastructure spending, $527 million is reported as
being spent on "other" uses which do not include Rapid Response
services, local administration, or statewide projects. The
Administration believes that at least $300 million of the $527 million
in "other" infrastructure funding can and should be used for training
additional workers for high growth jobs.
Regarding the discussion on data quality and validation, we appreciate
that GAO recognizes that ETA is taking steps to improve data quality
through data validation. TEGL 3-03 Change 1, Data Validation Policy for
Employment and Training Program, informs states that they are required
to validate WIASRD elements 332 to 337, which relate to Individual
Training Accounts (ITAs) and the provision of training. ETA has
provided the states with the software, handbooks, user guides and the
technical assistance necessary to develop reports and document
validation. States are encouraged to use the materials provided by ETA
as the basis for creating state specific policies for local areas. Some
states are already doing an excellent job customizing data validation
materials to meet local case management needs, and we expect better
data quality in the future as a result.
ETA plans to continue supporting data validation during the transition
to common measures and is currently revising the software and related
materials to match the new reporting requirements. ETA will also
continue to provide training and technical assistance to help states
improve data collection and source document retention procedures. In
the coming months, ETA will be publishing proposed revisions to the
WIASRD in the Federal Register for a 60-day public comment, and we
would welcome further specific comments from GAO on ways to strengthen
this reporting system during that time.
In addition, in Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 28-04,
Common Measures Policy, ETA standardized the definition of "exit" for
purposes of assessing program performance across all programs
implementing common measures. States will begin implementing the noted
change on July l, 2005, and we believe that this will improve the
comparability of WIA outcome data at both the state and local levels.
The report also indicates that some local workforce boards impose
limits on ITAs, such as capping the total amount available for ITAs and
limiting the total time for training. This effort is generally related
to attempts to maximize the number of people that can access some level
of training at the local level; however, ETA believes that strategic
investments in training for occupations in high-growth, high-demand
industries in the 2 IS' century economy will require a different set of
strategies. The skill level for many jobs is increasing significantly
as a result of technology and innovation. In some cases, the effort to
prepare workers for high-demand occupations will require longer periods
of training and in other cases we will need strategies that offer
workers the ability to gain their skills incrementally over time. As
part of its job training reform efforts, the Administration has
proposed creating Innovation Training Accounts. These accounts would
allow individuals to bundle training resources from a variety of
sources, including WIA funds, into a single, self-managed account that
would provide individuals with opportunities to acquire the skills that
businesses need and access to good jobs and career pathways. What is
most important is a better understanding by the state and local WIA
system of employer skill demands, successful economic development
strategies, and outcome-based and high-growth training opportunities.
Enclosed are ETA's technical comments on the draft report. If you would
like additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (202)
693-2700.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Emily Stover DeRocco:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Sigurd R Nilsen (202) 512-7215:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Joan Mahagan, Assistant Director, and Wayne Sylvia, Analyst-in-Charge,
managed all aspects of the assignment. Rebecca Woiwode made significant
contributions to this report in all aspects of the work. In addition,
Amanda Mackison and Matthew Saradjian assisted in the survey design,
data collection, and report writing; Stuart Kaufman and Shana Wallace
assisted in the design of the national survey and the assessment of the
survey's data reliability; James Ashley and Sidney Schwartz assisted in
data projections of the national survey; Grant Mallie and Stefanie
Bdzusek assisted in analyzing the national survey responses; Joan Vogel
assisted in assessing the data reliability of the WIASRD data; Jessica
Botsford and Richard Burkard provided legal support; and Corinna
Nicolaou provided writing assistance.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches
to Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements. GAO-05-
539.Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied
with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address
Employers' Needs. GAO-05-259. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2005.
Public Community Colleges And Technical Schools: Most Schools Use Both
Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development. GAO-05-04.
Washington, D.C.: Oct. 18, 2004.
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms Have Accelerated Training
Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges Remain. GAO-04-1012.
Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed
Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO-
04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.
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. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004.
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.: Feb. 23, 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.: Nov. 14, 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: 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: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for
Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO-03-636. Washington, D.C.:
April 25, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Interim Report on Status of Spending and
States' Available Funds. GAO-02-1074. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 5, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula
Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274. Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 11, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns
over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2001.
FOOTNOTES
[1] 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 2003 began on July 1, 2003, and ended on
June 30, 2004.
[2] For purposes of this report, we are defining "used" to mean funds
that are either spent or obligated.
[3] We chose to make these estimates based on an analysis of the
differences between the responding boards and the nonresponding boards.
All percentage estimates have margins of error of plus or minus 5
percentage points or less. All numerical estimates other than
percentages have margins of error of plus or minus 15 percent or less
of the value of those estimates, unless otherwise noted.
[4] 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 is not eligible but has been employed for a
sufficient duration to demonstrate attachment to the workforce; and is
unlikely to return to previous industry or occupation; (2) has been
terminated or laid off, or 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.
[5] See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation
Formulas for Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers, GAO-03-636
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2003).
[6] For additional information on National Emergency Grants, see GAO,
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 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2004).
[7] Under WIA, the chief elected official in a local area or his or her
designee serves as the local recipient of WIA funds. The local
recipient must disburse the funds at the direction of the local board.
[8] 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.
[9] Customized training is designed to meet the special requirements of
an employer and is conducted with a commitment by the employer to hire
the individual upon successful completion of the training, for which
the employer pays no less than 50 percent of the cost.
[10] The determination of whether training services may be made
available to adults or dislocated workers under WIA is generally made
by WIA adult or dislocated worker staff.
[11] Several prior reports have cited disincentives in the performance
measures to serve certain workers using WIA funds. See related GAO
products at the back of this report.
[12] WIA regulations require expenditures to be reported on an accrual
basis. This means states should report all cash outlays and all
accruals as expenditures on their reports. Accruals are amounts owed
for goods and services that have been received but for which cash has
not yet been disbursed.
[13] WIA funding for training is limited to participants who are unable
to obtain grant assistance from other sources to pay the costs of their
training, or who require assistance beyond that available under grant
assistance from other sources.
[14] To participate in the TAA program, laid-off workers must be
certified as eligible by the Department of Labor. For more information,
GAO, Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms Have Accelerated Training
Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges Remain, GAO-04-1012
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2004).
[15] For more information on the H-1B skill grant program, see GAO,
High Skill Training: Grants from H-1B Visa Fees Meet Specific Workforce
Needs, but at Varying Skill Levels, GAO-02-881 (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
20, 2002).
[16] Soft skills are the nontechnical skills, abilities, and traits
that workers need to function in a job. These include four sets of
workplace competencies: problem-solving and other cognitive skills,
oral communication skills, personal qualities and work ethic, and
interpersonal and teamwork skills.
[17] These figures include any participant who received training in
program year 2003, regardless of when they were enrolled in, or exited
from, the program.
[18] Under WIA, supportive services may only be provided to individuals
who are participating in core, intensive, or training services and who
are unable to obtain these services through other programs.
[19] For more information about workforce development programs offered
by community colleges and technical schools, see GAO, Public Community
Colleges and Technical Schools: Most Schools Use Both Credit and
Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development, GAO-05-04 (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 18, 2004).
[20] See Mathematica Policy Research, The Effects of Customer Choice:
First Findings from the Individual Training Account Experiments, Final
Interim Report (Washington, D.C.: December 2004).
[21] In Atlanta and Phoenix, the study was implemented by a consortium
of two local workforce investment areas.
[22] See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to
Address Concerns over New Requirements, GAO-02-72 (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 4, 2001).
[23] GAO, 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.: Feb. 23, 2004).
[24] U.S. 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).
[25] GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance
Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness, GAO-
02-275 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2002).
[26] For additional information on EMILE and common measures, see GAO,
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches
to Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements, GAO-05-539
(Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005).
[27] GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have
Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to
Help, GAO-04-657 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004).
[28] See GAO-05-539, p. 36-37; GAO-04-496, p. 29; GAO-04-657, p. 41;
and GAO-04-308, p. 31.
[29] Because we believe that having written procedures was less
important to define quality than the other three measures, we only
accepted responses without clarification if the board reported using
two of the three remaining procedures.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
