Senior Community Service Employment Program
Labor Has Made Progress Implementing Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000, but Challenges Remain Gao ID: GAO-06-549T April 6, 2006The aging of the baby boom generation and increased life expectancy pose serious challenges for our nation. Older adults often must re-enter the workforce in order to remain self-sufficient. The Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) is the only federal program that is specifically designed to assist low-income older adults by providing part-time community service jobs and training to prepare for employment. Since passage of the 2000 Older Americans Act Amendments (OAA), SCSEP has also increasingly focused on promoting economic self-sufficiency through placement in unsubsidized employment. In 2005, Congress appropriated about $439 million to serve about 100,000 older workers. Administered by the Department of Labor (Labor), SCSEP is implemented through 69 grantees, including 13 national organizations and 56 state and territorial agencies. The Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging asked GAO to (1) determine what effect the OAA Amendments have had on the distribution of SCSEP funds to national and state grantees, (2) describe the progress Labor has made in implementing the enhanced performance accountability system, and (3) identify the challenges faced by national and state grantees in managing the SCSEP program.
The 2000 OAA Amendments have had little impact on the distribution of funds between national and state grantees, with national grantees continuing to receive approximately 78 percent of the funding and states about 22 percent. However, the distribution of funding among national grantees has changed substantially as a result of Labor's 2002 open competition for the national grants portion of SCSEP funding. Labor has taken steps to establish an enhanced performance accountability system for SCSEP, but has yet to implement some features. For example, Labor introduced the new performance measures required by the OAA Amendments, but program year 2005--which ends on June 30, 2006--is the first year that grantees will be held accountable for meeting their goals. Labor has implemented an early version of a data collection system to track grantee performance, but the final Internet-based version is not yet available. Changes to the SCSEP eligibility criteria and difficulties coordinating with the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) one-stop system have posed challenges to SCSEP grantees. Labor modified some eligibility criteria to target limited program funds to individuals it believes are most in need of SCSEP services. However, grantees expressed concern that these changes had made it more difficult for them to meet their enrollment goals. Finally, GAO found that despite provisions in the OAA Amendments to strengthen connections between SCSEP and WIA, problems persist in coordinating with WIA providers and obtaining intensive and training services for older workers at one-stop centers.
GAO-06-549T, Senior Community Service Employment Program: Labor Has Made Progress Implementing Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000, but Challenges Remain
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-549T
entitled 'Senior Community Service Employment Program: Labor Has Made
Progress Implementing Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000, but
Challenges Remain' which was released on April 6, 2006.
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.
Testimony:
Before the Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. DST:
Thursday, April 6, 2006:
Senior Community Service Employment Program:
Labor Has Made Progress Implementing Older Americans Act Amendments of
2000, but Challenges Remain:
Statement of Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director, Education, Workforce, and
Income Security Issues:
GAO-06-549T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-549T, a report to Special Committee on Aging, U.S.
Senate:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The aging of the baby boom generation and increased life expectancy
pose serious challenges for our nation. Older adults often must re-
enter the workforce in order to remain self-sufficient. The Senior
Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) is the only federal
program that is specifically designed to assist low-income older adults
by providing part-time community service jobs and training to prepare
for employment. Since passage of the 2000 OAA Amendments, SCSEP has
also increasingly focused on promoting economic self-sufficiency
through placement in unsubsidized employment. In 2005, Congress
appropriated about $437 million to serve about 100,000 older workers.
Administered by the Department of Labor, SCSEP is implemented through
69 grantees, including 13 national organizations and 56 state and
territorial agencies.
The Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging asked GAO to (1)
determine what effect the OAA Amendments have had on the distribution
of SCSEP funds to national and state grantees, (2) describe the
progress Labor has made in implementing the enhanced performance
accountability system, and (3) identify the challenges faced by
national and state grantees in managing the SCSEP program in light of
the OAA amendments and Labor‘s governing regulations.
What GAO Found:
The 2000 OAA Amendments have had little impact on the distribution of
funds between national and state grantees, with national grantees
continuing to receive approximately 78 percent of the funding and
states about 22 percent. However, the distribution of funding among
national grantees has changed substantially as a result of Labor‘s open
competition for the national grants portion of SCSEP funding held in
2002.
Labor has taken steps to establish an enhanced performance
accountability system for SCSEP, but has yet to implement some features
fully. For example, Labor has introduced the new performance measures
required by the 2000 OAA Amendments, but program year 2005 – which ends
on June 30, 2006 -- is the first year for which grantees will be held
accountable for meeting their goals. Labor has also implemented an
early version of a data collection system to track grantee performance,
but the final Internet-based version is not yet available.
Changes to the SCSEP eligibility criteria and difficulties coordinating
with the Workforce Investment Act one-stop system have posed challenges
to SCSEP grantees. Although the 2000 OAA Amendments do not contain
provisions changing the eligibility criteria for SCSEP, Labor has
modified some eligibility criteria in an effort to better target
individuals most in need of SCSEP services. However, our work suggests
that these changes may have excluded some low-income older workers from
the program who would have otherwise been eligible for SCSEP. Finally,
we found that despite provisions in the 2000 OAA amendments to
strengthen connections between SCSEP and the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA), problems coordinating with WIA providers and obtaining intensive
and training services for older workers at one-stop centers persist.
Challenges to Managing SCSEP Cited by Grantees:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-549T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Sigurd R. Nilsen, (202)
512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Older Americans Act
Amendments of 2000 as they relate to the Senior Community Service
Employment Program (SCSEP). GAO has conducted several studies related
to older worker issues,[Footnote 1] and my testimony today is based on
work that you requested concerning how the Older Americans Act (OAA)
Amendments of 2000 have affected SCSEP.
The U.S. economy is experiencing a dramatic demographic change with the
aging of the baby boom generation (people born between 1946 and 1964),
the older of which are turning age 60 this year. Older Americans are
expected to represent a growing share of the population and have longer
life expectancy than previous generations. Many older adults may choose
to remain in the workforce or need to continue working for financial
reasons. Furthermore, the number of older adults living in poverty is
expected to increase significantly. By 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau
estimates that 6.7 million persons aged 55 and older will be below the
poverty level, a 22 percent increase over the number living in poverty
in 2000. This number is expected to increase to 9 million by 2015.
SCSEP is the only federal employment and training program targeted to
low-income older adults. Originally authorized in 1965 by the Older
Americans Act, SCSEP is administered by the Department of Labor (Labor)
to promote part-time community service activities for unemployed, low-
income individuals 55 years and older who have poor employment
prospects. Under the OAA Amendments of 2000, the program has evolved
from being primarily focused on community service to a program that
increasingly emphasizes economic self-sufficiency through unsubsidized
employment. The amendments also made other changes to SCSEP including
revising the funding distribution formula and establishing a
performance accountability system. Furthermore, in anticipation of the
upcoming reauthorization of Title V of OAA, the administration has
proposed additional changes to SCSEP. In fiscal year 2005, Congress
appropriated approximately $437 million for SCSEP that Labor
distributed to 69 grantees: 13 national grantees (consisting of 12
national non-profit organizations and 1 federal agency) and 56 state
and territorial agencies. These funds support about 61,000 SCSEP
positions through which approximately 100,000 participants are served
each year. The grantees typically place older workers in part-time
community service positions, such as nurse's aides, teacher aides,
librarians, clerical workers, and day care assistants, so that they can
gain on-the-job experience and prepare for unsubsidized employment.
My testimony today will address (1) changes in the distribution of
SCSEP funds to national and state grantees as a result of the Older
Americans Act Amendments of 2000, (2) the progress that Labor has made
in implementing an enhanced performance accountability system, and (3)
the challenges that national and state grantees face in managing SCSEP.
In summary, our work shows that the Older Americans Act Amendments of
2000 have had little effect on the distribution of funds between
national and state grantees, with the national grantees continuing to
receive approximately 78 percent of the funding and state grantees
about 22 percent. Since the amendments took effect in 2000, SCSEP
appropriations have experienced only minor fluctuations and
correspondingly, the total number of positions authorized for
participants has remained generally constant. However, the distribution
of funding and positions among national grantees has changed
substantially as a result of an open competition that Labor held in
2002. Further, although the amendments were passed in 2000, Labor has
yet to fully establish a performance accountability system. For
example, program year 2005 - which ends on June 30, 2006 - is the first
year for which grantees will be held accountable for their performance
and the final Internet-based version of Labor's data collection system
is not yet online. In addition, although the 2000 OAA amendments did
not contain provisions changing the eligibility criteria for SCSEP,
Labor modified several eligibility criteria that, according to national
and state grantees, have greatly decreased the pool of older workers
who are eligible for the program. Labor officials told us that the
changes were intended to ensure that the program targeted those most in
need of SCSEP services. However, our work suggests that these changes
may have excluded some low-income older workers from the program who
would have otherwise been eligible for SCSEP. Finally, we found that
despite provisions in the 2000 OAA amendments to strengthen connections
between SCSEP and the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), problems
coordinating with WIA providers and obtaining intensive and training
services for older workers at one-stop centers persist.
We based our work, in part, on a survey of the 13 national
organizations and 52 state grantees (including the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico). We received responses from all national and state
grantees. We also interviewed Labor officials and representatives from
four national organizations that received nearly two-thirds of the
SCSEP funds allocated to national organizations in program year
2005[Footnote 2]: AARP, Experience Works, Mature Services, and Senior
Service America. In addition, we visited five states--California,
Florida, Idaho, Ohio, and Oregon--and interviewed officials responsible
for administering SCSEP. We used several criteria in selecting site
visit locations, including geographic dispersion within the United
States, relative size of the state population, proportion of the state
population that is both elderly and below the poverty level, proportion
of the state population that is over the age of 55, and the amount of
SCSEP funding allocated to each state during program year 2004 (July 1,
2004 to June 30, 2005). We performed our work between July 2005 and
March 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Background:
SCSEP, as authorized under the OAA Amendments of 2000, promotes part-
time opportunities in community service for unemployed low-income
persons who are at least 55 years old and have poor employment
prospects. The program is also designed to foster economic self-
sufficiency by assisting older workers in transitioning to unsubsidized
employment. Administered by Labor for over 30 years, the program
operates in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The
program is administered through grants awarded to national
organizations as well as state and territorial agencies. (See appendix
I for a listing of national grantees and funds and positions awarded in
program year 2005.) In program year 2005, approximately $437 million
was appropriated to support about 61,000 SCSEP positions through which
approximately 100,000 participants are served. (See appendix II for a
listing of funds and positions awarded by state in program year 2005).
SCSEP serves unemployed persons who are 55 years or older whose family
incomes are no more than 125 percent of the federal poverty level.
Participants are placed in part-time community service assignments in a
local nonprofit organization or public-sector agency to gain on-the-job
experience and prepare for unsubsidized employment. Program
participants receive training and work experience in a wide variety of
occupations, including nurse's aides, teacher aides, librarians,
clerical workers, and day care assistants. Program participants are
paid the highest federal, state, or local applicable minimum wage, or
the prevailing rate of pay for persons employed in similar occupations
by the same employer. The OAA Amendments require that at least 75
percent of SCSEP funds be used to subsidize participants' wages and
fringe benefits and no more than 13.5 percent of the funds may be used
for administrative expenses. The remaining funds may be used for other
program costs such as assessments, training, job placement assistance,
and supportive services.[Footnote 3]
The OAA Amendments of 2000 were designed to make a number of changes to
SCSEP. The amendments contained provisions to:
* Establish unsubsidized employment as a program goal, while
maintaining the community service aspect of the program.
* Establish a performance accountability system that held grantees
accountable for meeting specific performance measures, including
placement and retention of participants in unsubsidized employment,
community services provided, customer satisfaction, and number of
persons served--particularly those with the greatest economic and
social need or those with poor employment history or prospects, and
those over age 60.
* Improve coordination between SCSEP and WIA.
* Strengthen administrative procedures by defining administrative and
program costs and applying uniform cost principles.
In addition, the amendments revised the distribution formula by
specifying that the first $35 million in funding above the amount to
maintain current level of program year 2000 activities be allocated 75
percent to state grantees and 25 percent to national grantees. Any
additional funds above $35 million will be allocated evenly between
state and national grantees.
OAA Amendments Have Had Minimal Impact On Funding Distribution Between
National And State Grantees:
The OAA Amendments have had little effect on the distribution of funds
between national and state grantees, with the national grantees
continuing to receive approximately 78 percent of the funding and state
grantees about 22 percent. Since the amendments took effect in 2000,
the SCSEP appropriation has experienced only minor fluctuations and
correspondingly, the total number of positions has remained largely
constant. However, the distribution of funding and positions among
national grantees has changed substantially. An open competition for
national SCSEP positions held in 2002 increased the total number of
national grantees from 10 to 13 (eliminating 1 incumbent grantee and
introducing 4 new grantees) and reshuffled funding and positions among
existing grantees. In program year 2005, national grantees operated in
all states (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) except
Alaska, Delaware, and Hawaii. Approximately two-thirds of both national
and state grantee positions are located in metropolitan areas. However,
the percentage of positions in metropolitan areas varied widely among
national grantees. For example, three national grantees administer more
than 90 percent of their SCSEP positions in metropolitan counties,
while two have about 40 percent of their positions in metropolitan
counties.
OAA Amendments Have Had Little Effect on the Distribution of SCSEP
Funds:
The revision of the funding formula outlined in the OAA Amendments has
had little impact on the distribution of funds between national and
state grantees. The formula takes effect only when SCSEP funding for
national and state grantees rises above program year 2000 levels of
approximately $423 million.[Footnote 4] Because the SCSEP appropriation
has remained relatively constant over the past 5 years, the
distribution of funds between national and state grantees has also
experienced little change. In each program year since 2000,
approximately 78 percent of the SCSEP funding for grantees was
allocated to national grantees and 22 percent was allocated to state
grantees (see figure 1).
Figure 1: Distribution of SCSEP Funding for Program Years 2000-2005:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Excludes funding for the two national grantees that serve
minority communities. These grantees receive a separate allotment from
Labor and are not subject to the revised funding formula outlined in
the 2000 OAA Amendments.
[End of figure]
For program year 2005, nearly $437 million in SCSEP appropriations
funded 61,047 positions--160 fewer than were funded in program year
2000.[Footnote 5] Slight funding increases from program years 2002 to
2004 provided for as much as $4.6 million in additional annual funding
for national and state grantees. Labor allotted approximately 75
percent of this amount to state grantees and 25 percent to national
grantees in accordance with the revised distribution formula. However,
these funding increases did not markedly alter the overall distribution
between national and state grantees.
2002 Competition Reshuffled Funds and Positions among National
Grantees:
Labor's 2002 open competition for the national grants portion of SCSEP
funding increased the number of national grantees administering SCSEP
and substantially reshuffled positions and funding among existing
grantees. Labor decided to conduct the competition in order to ensure
that the most qualified organizations were awarded grants, to open the
grantee community to new organizations, and to provide better services
to SCSEP participants. The competition--the first of its kind in
SCSEP's history--yielded 68 applications. A three-member Labor review
panel evaluated each application and scored it according to the
applicant's plan for program design and services, coordination and
oversight, and management structure and fiscal integrity. Based on
these scores, Labor ranked each applicant, deemed that 13 applicants
scored in a competitive range making them eligible to receive grant
awards, and allotted positions by county to grantees on a winner-takes-
all basis. Specifically, the highest ranked applicant received all the
positions it requested, and each subsequent applicant received all
positions not previously claimed by a higher ranked applicant. All 13
competitive applicants were eventually awarded positions. The
competition produced four new national grantees, increasing the total
number from 10 to 13. One incumbent grantee, the National Urban League,
was not awarded a grant to continue administering SCSEP. The
competition also resulted in a significant reshuffling of funds and
positions among incumbent grantees. Of the nine incumbent national
grantees that were awarded continuing grants, two gained positions, and
seven lost positions (see table 1).
Table 1: National Grantee Positions Before and After 2002 Competition:
Incumbent Grantees that Gained Positions:
National Grantee: AARP Foundation;
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 7,097;
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): 10,487;
Change: + 3,390.
National Grantee: National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc;
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre- competition): 1,831;
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): 2,140;
Change: + 309.
Incumbent grantees that lost positions:
National Grantee: Experience Works, Inc;
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 14,915;
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): 12,051;
Change: - 2,864.
National Grantee: National Council on the Aging, Inc;
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 5,334;
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): 3,069;
Change: - 2,265.
National Grantee: National Urban League;
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 2,163;
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): (not selected);
Change: - 2,163.
National Grantee: Senior Service America, Inc;
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 9,015;
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post- competition): 7,017;
Change: - 1,998.
National Grantee: USDA Forest Service;
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 3,998;
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): 2,863;
Change: - 1,135.
National Grantee: Asociacion Nacional Pro Personas Mayores;
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 1,864;
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): 1,090;
Change: - 774.
National Grantee: National Indian Council on Aging;
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 867;
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post- competition): 862;
Change: - 5.
National Grantee: National Asian Pacific Center on Aging;
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 857;
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post- competition): 856;
Change: - 1.
New grantees:
National Grantee: SER - Jobs for Progress National, Inc;
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): (new grantee);
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): 3,681;
Change: + 3,681.
National Grantee: Easter Seals, Inc;
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): (new grantee);
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post- competition): 2,267;
Change: + 2,267.
National Grantee: Mature Services, Inc;
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): (new grantee);
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post- competition): 774;
Change: + 774.
National Grantee: National Able Network;
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): (new grantee);
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post- competition): 764;
Change: + 764.
National Grantee: TOTAL;
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 47,941;
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): 47,921;
Change: - 20.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration.
[End of table]
Labor determines the amount of funding to be allocated to grantees
based on a "cost per authorized position" outlined in the OAA
Amendments. As a result, following the 2002 competition, the 13
successful grantees received funding approximately equal to the number
of positions they were awarded times $7,153--the pre-determined cost
per authorized position. Among incumbent grantees, two gained
additional funding and seven lost funding. AARP Foundation gained more
than $24 million in additional funds, while Experience Works, Inc. lost
$20.5 million in funding. Altogether, the four new grantees received
approximately $54 million in SCSEP funding (see table 2).
Table 2: National Grantee Funding Before and After 2002 Competition:
Incumbent Grantees that Gained Funding:
National Grantee[A]: AARP Foundation;
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): $50,764,841;
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $75,018,059;
Change: $24,253,218.
National Grantee[A]: National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc;
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre- competition): $13,097,143;
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $15,310,083;
Change: $2,212,940.
Incumbent grantees that lost funding
National Grantee[A]: Experience Works, Inc;
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): $106,686,995;
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post- competition): $86,202150;
Change: -$20,484,845.
National Grantee[A]: National Council on the Aging, Inc;
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): $38,154,102;
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $21,952,313;
Change: - $16,201,789.
National Grantee[A]: National Urban League;
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): $15,471,939;
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post- competition): (not selected);
Change: -$15,471,939.
National Grantee[A]: Senior Service America, Inc;
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): $64,484,295;
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $50,190,834;
Change: - $14,293,461.
National Grantee[A]: USDA Forest Service;
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): $28,597,694;
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post- competition): $20,483,709;
Change: -$8,113,985.
National Grantee[A]: Asociacion Nacional Pro Personas Mayores;
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre- competition): $13,333,192;
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $7,793,500;
Change: - $5,539,692.
National Grantee[A]: National Indian Council on Aging;
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): $6,201,651;
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $6,165,886;
Change: -$35,765.
National Grantee[A]: National Asian Pacific Center on Aging;
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre- competition): $6,130,121;
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $6,120,400;
Change: - $9,721.
New grantees:
National Grantee[A]: SER - Jobs for Progress National, Inc;
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre- competition): (new grantee);
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $26,319,150;
Change: $26,319,150.
National Grantee[A]: Easter Seals, Inc;
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): (new grantee);
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post- competition): $16,219,388;
Change: $16,219,388.
National Grantee[A]: Mature Services, Inc;
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): (new grantee);
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post- competition): $5,536,422;
Change: $5,536,422.
National Grantee[A]: National Able Network;
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): (new grantee);
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post- competition): $5,462,600;
Change: $5,462,600.
TOTAL;
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): $342,921,973;
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $342,774,494;
Change: -$147,479.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration.
[End of table]
On March 2, 2006, Labor announced an open competition for program year
2006 national grantee funding. This announcement is consistent with
Labor's current proposal for the reauthorization of SCSEP, which
recommends eliminating performance sanctions in favor of holding a
competition for grants every three years. Using similar criteria to
those used in the 2002 competition, Labor plans to award no more than
20 grants to national grantees, including at least 1 grant to an Indian
and Native American organization and at least 1 grant to an Asian
Pacific Islander organization. Labor is specifically seeking
organizations that are able to foster partnerships with one-stop career
centers and community colleges and that promote private employment
through high-growth job opportunities. In order to increase program
effectiveness and achieve economies of scale, Labor has consolidated
the geographic areas over which grantees will administer SCSEP for the
upcoming program year. When requesting positions, potential grantees
must apply for at least 10 percent of a state's allocation, or $1.6
million, whichever is greater. Furthermore, applicants that apply for
more than one county in a state must request contiguous counties, and
except in the cases of very large counties, they must apply for all the
positions in a county.
Equal Share of National and State Positions Located in Metropolitan
Areas:
For program year 2005, slightly more than two-thirds of both national
and state grantee positions are located in metropolitan areas. National
grantees administer SCSEP in every state except Alaska, Delaware, and
Hawaii, while state grantees operate SCSEP in all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.[Footnote 6] Individual national
grantees operate in as many as 39 states (Experience Works, Inc.) and
as few as 2 states (Mature Services, Inc.) The share of positions in
metropolitan areas varies widely among national grantees. Three
grantees administer more than 90 percent of their SCSEP positions in
metropolitan counties, while two grantees have fewer than half of their
positions in metropolitan counties (see table 3).
Table 3: Summary of SCSEP Positions for Program Year 2005:
Total grantees;
Total SCSEP Positions: 60,590[B];
Number of States Served[A]: 52;
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 71.
State grantees;
Total SCSEP Positions: 12,982;
Number of States Served[A]: 52;
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: : 69.
National grantees;
Total SCSEP Positions: 47,608;
Number of States Served[A]: 49;
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 72.
Grantee: AARP Foundation;
Total SCSEP Positions: 10,362;
Number of States Served[A]: 29;
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 96.
Grantee: Asociacion Nacional Pro Personas Mayores;
Total SCSEP Positions: 1,075;
Number of States Served[A]: 6;
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 100.
Grantee: Easter Seals, Inc;
Total SCSEP Positions: 2,248;
Number of States Served[A]: 9;
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 85.
Grantee: Experience Works, Inc;
Total SCSEP Positions: 12,029;
Number of States Served[A]: 39;
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 41.
Grantee: Mature Services, Inc;
Total SCSEP Positions: 771;
Number of States Served[A]: 2;
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 89.
Grantee: National Able Network;
Total SCSEP Positions: 760;
Number of States Served[A]: 4;
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 58.
Grantee: National Asian Pacific Center on Aging;
Total SCSEP Positions: 836;
Number of States Served[A]: 8;
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 100.
Grantee: National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc;
Total SCSEP Positions: 2,129;
Number of States Served[A]: 11;
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 82.
Grantee: National Council on the Aging, Inc;
Total SCSEP Positions: 3,020;
Number of States Served[A]: 12;
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 80.
Grantee: National Indian Council on Aging;
Total SCSEP Positions: 842;
Number of States Served[A]: 15;
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 62.
Grantee: Senior Service America, Inc;
Total SCSEP Positions: 7,030;
Number of States Served[A]: 24;
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 84.
Grantee: SER - Jobs for Progress National, Inc;
Total SCSEP Positions: 3,658;
Number of States Served[A]: 16;
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 79.
Grantee: USDA Forest Service;
Total SCSEP Positions: 2,848;
Number of States Served[A]: 38;
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 39.
Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor PY2005 equitable
distribution data and OMB metropolitan status data.
[A] Includes all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico:
[B] Excludes the 457 positions allotted to the territories.
[End of table]
Labor Has Yet To Fully Implement An Enhanced Performance Accountability
System:
Labor has taken steps to establish an enhanced performance
accountability system for SCSEP, but has yet to implement some features
fully. While Labor has introduced the new performance measures that the
OAA amendments of 2000 required, program year 2005 --which ends on June
30, 2006 - is the first year for which grantees will be held
accountable for their performance. Labor has also implemented an early
version of a data collection system to capture performance information,
but the final version is not yet available to grantees in its intended
online format. In addition, Labor has recently undertaken a broad
assessment of SCSEP on such issues as participant outcomes, program
costs, and grantee challenges, but has not yet issued a report.
New Performance Measures Were Recently Implemented:
Labor has implemented new performance measures, as required by the OAA
Amendments of 2000, and will begin sanctioning grantees that
demonstrate poor performance for the current program year - 2005 -
which ends on June 30, 2006. After Labor issued final regulations for
SCSEP in April 2004, it instituted practice measures for program year
2004, as grantees transitioned to the new data collection and reporting
requirements. Labor used the resulting performance data to help set
baseline goals for grantees to meet during program year 2005.
For program year 2005, four SCSEP measures will contribute to a
grantee's overall performance assessment, according to Labor. They
include:
Placement: the number of participants attaining unsubsidized
employment, either full-or part-time, for at least 30 days of the first
90 days after exiting the program, divided by the number of authorized
SCSEP positions.
Employment Retention: the rate of retention in unsubsidized employment
6 months after placement.
Service Level: the number of a grantee's participants divided by the
number of the grantee's authorized positions.
Service to Most-in-Need: the percentage of participants who are at
least 60 years old and who have at least one of several additional
barriers to employment, such as language barriers, poor employment
history, or a physical or mental disability.
Labor officials told us they plan to assess grantees on their aggregate
performance across these four SCSEP performance measures. A grantee
satisfies its overall performance goal if it attains an average score
across the four measures of at least 80 percent of the target goals.
Thus, a grantee could meet its performance requirements by attaining
less than 80 percent of some goals but more than 80 percent of the
others. For example, Labor's data show that one state achieved 47
percent of its placement goal but performed well enough on the other
measures to receive an average score well above the 80 percent
threshold for satisfactory performance. According to Labor, grantees
varied in their ability to meet goals for individual measures during
the transitional period of program year 2004. (See appendix III for a
listing of the program year 2004 results compared to the performance
goals for each grantee.) However, Labor officials said that most
grantees managed to meet the 80 percent threshold for their overall
performance goal. (See appendix IV for results for each of the
grantees.) They also stated that, based on Labor's assessment of data
from the first 2 quarters of the current year, most grantees appear to
be on track for meeting their performance goals for program year 2005.
Sanctions for poor performance are similar for state and national
grantees and will begin after the first year of not meeting the 80
percent threshold for overall performance. If performance does not
improve, sanctions will increase in severity after the second and third
consecutive years. After the first year of poor performance, a grantee
must submit a corrective action plan within 160 days of the end of the
program year. In addition, Labor will provide the grantee with
technical assistance to help correct the problem. A second consecutive
year of failing to meet performance goals will generate a competition
for 25 percent of the grantee's funds for the following program year.
If a grantee continues to perform poorly for a third year, another
competition will result for the remaining amount of the grantee's
funding. Furthermore, in addition to meeting their own goals, national
grantees must meet the performance goals of each state in which they
administer the program. If they fail to meet the state goals, Labor
will require a corrective action plan after the first year of poor
performance and may take other appropriate actions, including
transferring responsibility for the project to other grantees. National
or state grantees that fall short of one performance target but
otherwise meet their aggregate goals will not be subject to sanction;
Labor will instead provide them with technical assistance related to
that performance issue.
In addition, Labor requires grantees to report on the customer
satisfaction of participants, host agencies, and employers by surveying
each group. Although poor performance on this measure will result in
technical assistance rather than sanctions, Labor officials told us
that to date customer satisfaction has been very high. While grantees
must also report the number of community service hours participants
contribute, Labor officials told us that they have struggled to create
a measurable indicator for community service and do not plan to
sanction performance in this area.
SCSEP grantees must also collect data to support several common
measures as part of a government-wide initiative to provide comparable
performance information across federal programs with similar goals and
operations.[Footnote 7] For job training and employment programs
serving adults, the three common measures include entered employment,
retention, and average earnings. Thus, between the SCSEP measures and
the common measures, grantees must collect and report on data for 9
different performance measures. The SCSEP placement and retention
measures overlap somewhat with the common measures for entered
employment and retention, although the SCSEP measures, as defined by
the OAA Amendments of 2000, are computed differently. (See table 4.)
Specifically, the SCSEP placement measure is calculated relative to
each grantee's number of authorized positions, while the common measure
for entered employment is based on the number of participants who exit
the program. Likewise, the SCSEP retention measure evaluates employment
6 months after placement, while the common measure for retention
assesses a participant's employment in both the second and third
quarters after exit.
Table 4: Comparison Of SCSEP Placement And Retention Measures With
Common Measures For Entered Employment And Retention:
SCSEP Performance Measure: Placement: the number of participants whose
placement into unsubsidized employment became final during the quarter,
divided by the total number of authorized community service positions;
Common Measure: Entered Employment: the number of participants employed
in the first quarter after exiting the program, divided by the total
number of participants who exit the program during the quarter.
SCSEP Performance Measure: Retention: the number of participants placed
into unsubsidized employment and who are still employed 6 months after
the date of placement, divided by the number of participants placed
into unsubsidized employment;
Common Measure: Retention: of those participants who are employed in
the first quarter after exiting the program, the number employed in
both the second and third quarters after exit, divided by the number of
participants employed in the first quarter after the quarter of exit.
[End of table]
Grantees are not subject to sanction for performance on the common
measures, which the Office of Management and Budget will use to
evaluate the overall effectiveness of SCSEP. However, the
administration's legislative proposal for reauthorizing SCSEP supports
using the common measures. Additional measures, such as community
services provided, could be tracked as secondary outcomes.
New Data Collection System Is in Interim Stage:
Labor has designed a data collection system to capture performance
information, but has not yet implemented the Internet-based version.
The agency is in the process of moving to an Internet-based system that
incorporates the new performance data required under the 2000 OAA
amendments. In order to capture baseline performance data in program
year 2004, Labor rolled out an early, non-Internet version of its data
collection system in time to receive data from the first quarter of
that program year. Although it collects the required performance data,
this interim system is limited in its usefulness for helping to manage
the program. For example, grantees are unable to access their quarterly
progress reports directly and must wait for Labor to process and send
the data to them. Likewise, grantees receive reports that notify them
of errors in their data submissions, but the reports do not identify
which records are problematic. Moreover, since the initial roll-out,
Labor has incorporated several modifications to the system and required
data reporting elements. Currently, grantees either use the early
version of Labor's new system or continue to use their own databases
while they wait for the new Internet-based data collection system to
undergo testing and be rolled out. If procurement and technical
processes go as planned, Labor hopes to fully implement the Internet-
based data collection system by mid-May 2006.
Labor has provided grantees with guidance and technical assistance on
implementing the new data collection system. In addition to issuing
written guidance, Labor and its contractors have conducted
demonstrations and offer ongoing direct assistance, including an
Internet-based forum for grantee questions on implementing the new
system.
Labor Has Initiated a Broad Assessment of SCSEP:
Labor recently undertook a broad assessment of SCSEP, which it has yet
to complete. In 2004, Labor contracted with DAH Consulting, Inc. and
Social Policy Research to conduct an assessment of SCSEP. In addition
to assessing the success of grantees in finding useful community
service assignments and increasing unsubsidized employment, Labor
planned to examine issues of participant training, coordination with
the one-stop system, program costs, outcomes, and challenges faced by
grantees. The project design included site visits to a sample of 9 of
the 13 national grantees, as well as 10 state grantees. An additional
nine state grantees were interviewed by telephone. As of March 2006,
Labor officials had received a draft of the study but sent it back to
DAH with requested changes, and they had not provided us with
preliminary results.
SCSEP Eligibility and Coordination With WIA Are Among The Major
Challenges Grantees Face:
Changes to SCSEP eligibility criteria and coordination difficulties
with WIA and the one-stop system pose major challenges to SCSEP
grantees in managing the program. The 2000 OAA amendments do not
contain provisions changing the eligibility criteria for SCSEP. Labor,
however, modified some eligibility criteria to reflect the Department's
philosophy that the program should be better targeted to those
individuals most in need of SCSEP's intensive services. According to
national and state grantees, changes that Labor made in SCSEP
eligibility requirements have greatly reduced the pool of older workers
who are eligible for SCSEP services. For example, many older adults are
no longer eligible to receive SCSEP service because Labor has changed
how it determines a person's income for eligibility into the program.
Other older adults who are below the poverty level but who work part-
time or seasonally to supplement their income are no longer eligible to
receive SCSEP services if they have these jobs at the time of
application. In addition, the majority of the 13 national and 52 state
grantees identified coordinating with WIA providers, obtaining
intensive and training services at one-stop centers, implementing
Labor's new data collection system, and meeting new performance
measures as being major challenges to managing the SCSEP program.
Changes in Eligibility Criteria Have Reduced Number of Eligible
Applicants:
According to national and state grantees, changes in SCSEP eligibility
requirements have greatly decreased the pool of low-income older
workers who are eligible for program services. While, the OAA
Amendments do not define what constitutes income, Labor decided to use
the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS) as the
standard for determining income eligibility for SCSEP. In the preamble
to its April 2004 regulations, Labor set forth its intent to use the
income categories collected in the CPS as the SCSEP definition of
income for determining program eligibility. After receiving feedback
from grantees, Labor decided to exclude certain forms of income. For
example, Labor excluded disability benefits--except SSDI--as well as
supplementary security income, workers' compensation, public
assistance, child support, and several other sources of income. Labor
issued guidance in April 2004 and again in January 2005 to reflect and
clarify policy changes to SCSEP eligibility criteria that were
previously established in guidance issued in December 1995. Major
changes include what is to be counted as income, what time period is to
be used for the purposes of calculating income, and whether applicants
must be unemployed at time of application. (See table 5.)
Table 5: Changes to Eligibility Criteria:
Changes to Eligibility Criteria: Social security income;
Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June 1995: 25 percent of social
security income excluded from income calculations;
Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, issued January 2005: No
exclusion, all social security income counted in income calculations.
Changes to Eligibility Criteria: Social security disability insurance
(SSDI);
Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June 1995: Excluded from income
calculations;
Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, issued January 2005:
Included in income calculations (other disability benefits excluded).
Changes to Eligibility Criteria: Unemployment compensation;
Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June 1995: Excluded from income
calculations;
Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, issued January 2005:
Included in income calculations.
Changes to Eligibility Criteria: Veterans' payments;
Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June 1995: Excluded from income
calculations;
Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, issued January 2005:
Included in income calculations.
Changes to Eligibility Criteria: Interest/dividends;
Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June 1995: $3000 excluded from
income calculations;
Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, issued January 2005:
Included in income calculations.
Changes to Eligibility Criteria: Exclusion for enrollee
recertification;
Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June 1995: $500 of includable income
was not counted for enrollee recertification;
Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, issued January 2005: No
such exclusion.
Changes to Eligibility Criteria: Time period for income calculations;
Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June 1995: Option of using either
previous 12 months or 6 months annualized;
Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, issued January 2005: No
option, calculations based on 6 months annualized.
Changes to Eligibility Criteria: Employment status;
Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June 1995: Not mentioned. Labor
allowed applicants to be either under-employed or unemployed;
Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, issued January 2005:
Applicants must be unemployed.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor guidance:
[End of table]
Most national and state grantees surveyed cited the revised income
criteria as the major factor that precluded previously eligible
individuals from receiving SCSEP services. For example, one state
grantee responded to our survey that more than two-thirds of the
applicants determined to be ineligible because of the revised income
criteria would have been eligible under previous criteria. A state
grantee that we visited estimated that 133 individuals in 2005 who
would have been eligible for SCSEP under previous eligibility criteria
were no longer eligible. More than one-half of these individuals were
determined to be ineligible because of the revised income criteria.
Similarly, a national grantee that we visited reported that during a 3
month period in 2004, 321 individuals that would have been previously
eligible for SCSEP were declared ineligible because of changes to the
income definition. Two other national grantees noted in their survey
responses that a number of current participants had to be dropped from
the program because of the revised income criteria. In addition, two
national grantees told us that the income requirements had especially
affected rural areas. For example, one grantee stated that hundreds of
older workers in rural areas who would have been previously eligible
had been turned away because of the changes to the SCSEP income
definition.
The administration's proposal for the upcoming reauthorization of Title
V of OAA contains provisions for standardizing the income threshold.
Labor believes that reauthorization provides an opportunity to align
SCSEP income eligibility criteria with those used by Labor and other
federal programs that are income-tested. Labor noted that more
uniformity with respect to the types of income used to determine
program eligibility, such as Social Security benefits versus earned
income, would increase public confidence that these programs were being
administered in a consistent and equitable manner.
Many grantees surveyed reported that revising the period on which
income is calculated had also greatly reduced the pool of individuals
who are eligible to receive SCSEP services. Prior to Labor's
regulations issued in 2004, grantees had the option of calculating
income using either the includable income for the 12 months preceding
application or annualizing the includable income for the 6 months
preceding application, that is doubling the 6-month income to calculate
an annual income. Labor now requires grantees to annualize an
applicant's income using the 6 months prior to application. Four of the
national grantees (31 percent) and 16 of the state grantees (31
percent) responded in the survey that this change had greatly decreased
the pool of individuals who are eligible to receive SCSEP services.
Another 4 national grantees (31 percent) and 18 state grantees (35
percent) responded that it had somewhat decreased the eligible pool.
For example, a national grantee and two state grantees noted in their
survey responses that using 6 months annualized could distort income
for those who only had earnings during that 6-month period. Another
state grantee reported that annualizing 6 months of income eliminates
individuals who would have qualified using a 12-month calculation. A
state grantee that we visited believes that annualizing 6 months of
income is a particular problem for rural states because many
participants work only during the planting or harvest seasons. Labor
officials said that changing the period on which income is calculated
was intended to simplify the process and to reflect the most current
income information.
Most national and state grantees surveyed also reported that requiring
applicants to be unemployed at time of application had reduced the pool
of individuals who are eligible to receive SCSEP services because prior
to the OAA Amendments of 2000, Labor permitted applicants who held part-
time jobs and met other eligibility criteria to be eligible for SCSEP
services. The 2000 OAA amendments retained the language contained in
the statement of purpose from the authorizing legislation that the
program was to provide services to unemployed low income adults 55
years and older. The amendments, however, defined eligible individuals
as those individuals who are 55 years and older and have income not
more than 125 percent of the poverty guidelines, but did not refer to
employment status. Labor officials stated that the Office of the
Solicitor took a strict interpretation of the act and determined that
applicants must be unemployed at the time of application to be eligible
for SCSEP. Labor officials noted that this interpretation was
consistent with the overall philosophy that SCSEP should be targeted to
those most in need of SCSEP's intensive services.
Grantees responding to our survey indicated that the requirement that
applicants be unemployed prevented some low-income older workers, who
would otherwise be eligible for the program, from receiving SCSEP
services. For example, one national grantee reported that many older
workers who are only working sporadically or part-time to supplement
their incomes, (referred to as underemployed) are no longer eligible
for SCSEP services. Two state grantees mentioned that underemployed
applicants seek SCSEP services to obtain additional skills to increase
their potential for a better job and stated that SCSEP services can
help such individuals rise above the poverty level. Another state
grantee noted that under-employed older workers who may work only 4
hours per week are not earning a livable wage and should be eligible
for services. One of the state grantees that we visited said that many
older workers who lived in the state were employed part-time and could
benefit from SCSEP services. They estimated that in 2005, over 20
percent of the 133 older workers that would have been previously
eligible for SCSEP were no longer eligible because of the requirement
that applicants be unemployed.
Other Challenges That Grantees Face:
National and state grantees surveyed also identified other issues that
presented major challenges to managing the SCSEP program. The majority
of both national and state grantees identified several issues in the
survey as being great or very great challenges, in particular
coordinating of SCSEP activities with WIA services, obtaining intensive
services and training at one-stop centers, implementing Labor's new
data collection system, and meeting performance measures (see figure
2).
Figure 2: Issues Cited by Majority of National and State Grantees as
Great or Very Great Challenges:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Although the 2000 OAA amendments sought to strengthen coordination
between SCSEP and WIA, national and state grantees surveyed identified
the coordination of SCSEP activities with WIA services and obtaining
intensive services and training at one-stops as major challenges. For
example, several national and state grantees responded that many WIA
providers are hesitant to provide intensive services or training to
SCSEP participants because they are concerned that enrolling older
adults would negatively affect their performance measures. Older adults
who receive intensive services or training from WIA providers are
included in the computation of WIA performance measures. Another state
grantee stated that while coordination with one-stops for core services
is very good, access to training is very difficult. We heard a similar
theme among states we visited. For example, one state grantee we
visited said that WIA is so performance-driven that few SCSEP
participants are able to access intensive and training services under
WIA.
The reported lack of coordination between SCSEP and WIA is especially
relevant in light of the administration's proposal to increase the age
of SCSEP eligibility from 55 to 65, with limited exceptions for those
between the ages of 55-64. Labor believes that WIA, not SCSEP, should
be the primary program for older adults age 55 to 64. However, we have
previously reported that WIA has built in disincentives that discourage
the providing of in-depth services, such as training, to older
adults.[Footnote 8] We noted that the Bureau of Labor Statistics and
Census data suggest that older workers have unique employment
characteristics, such as a tendency to work part-time and a likelihood
to take larger pay cuts than younger workers when they re-enter the
labor market. These characteristics may negatively affect outcomes on
certain WIA performance measures, and, as a result, create a barrier to
enrolling older workers into WIA intensive services and training.
While most of the 13 national and 52 state grantees surveyed also
reported challenges with Labor's new data collection system, they noted
that the agency provided helpful assistance with system implementation.
Several national and state grantees stated that implementation of the
data system was both time and labor-intensive. In particular, one state
grantee told us that Labor rolled out the data collection system
prematurely, resulting in a loss of productivity at the grantee and
subgrantee level. Despite these concerns, most grantees indicated that
they received training or technical assistance for the system from
Labor or its contractors. Moreover, while several national and state
grantees provided positive comments about Labor's assistance, with
respect to staff responsiveness, others were less than satisfied and
indicated the need for more assistance.
All of the national grantees and most of the state grantees that cited
meeting performance measures as a great or very great challenge in the
survey indicated that the program eligibility changes had the greatest
effect on their ability to meet the performance measure dealing with
SCSEP service level.[Footnote 9] A number of state grantees mentioned
that the greater difficulty in recruiting SCSEP participants translated
into difficulty meeting the service level performance measure. Another
of the state grantees that we visited said that the service level
measure would present the greatest challenge because the income
guidelines were too restrictive. According to Labor data, 7 of the 13
national grantees and 21 of the 52 state grantees did not meet their
service level goals for program year 2004. Labor officials noted that
some of the grantees who were concerned with low enrollments may not
perform sufficient outreach or marketing.
Concluding Observations:
The aging of the baby boom generation presents serious challenges for
the nation's workforce investment system. The expected increase in the
number of low-income older adults means that, more and more, older
Americans will have to continue working in order to have sufficient
income. Many older adults have difficulty re-entering the labor force
and often rely on federal employment and training programs to help them
find employment, with SCSEP being the only federal employment and
training program targeted exclusively to low-income older adults. While
the 2000 OAA Amendments to SCSEP have achieved desired outcomes in some
respects--particularly in terms of increasing the program's focus on
helping participants find unsubsidized employment--challenges remain.
More specifically, while Labor has taken steps to establish an enhanced
performance accountability system, as of March 2006 the system has
still not been fully implemented. The delay in implementing this system
means that program year 2005 is the first year that grantees will be
held accountable for poor performance. In this respect, given the
upcoming reauthorization of the OAA, only limited data will be
available to assess the affects of the system. In addition, the current
eligibility requirements implemented by Labor may exclude a substantial
portion of the low-income older adults from the program. While Labor
apparently changed the eligibility requirements in an effort to target
older adults most in need of SCSEP services, our work suggests that
these changes have had the unintended consequence of excluding older
adults who only work a few hours a week, and could benefit from the
program. As a result, those needing additional assistance would have to
turn to other employment and training programs such as WIA. However,
given the problems older adults often experience in obtaining in-depth
services such as training, it is unclear whether the existing workforce
system is able to provide the type and level of services that this
population needs. Thus, while the 2000 OAA amendments were designed to
enhance employment and training opportunities for older adults, we
believe that Labor can do more to address unresolved issues concerning
coordination between SCSEP and WIA, and helping older adults obtain
intensive and training services at one-stop centers.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have
at this time.
GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-7215. Jeremy Cox, Wayne Sylvia, Rebecca Woiwode, and Drew
Lindsey were key contributors to this testimony.
[End of section]
Appendix I:
Table 6: National Grantee Funds and Positions for Program Year 2005:
National Grantee: TOTAL;
Funds: $340,542,384;
Positions: 47,608.
National Grantee: AARP Foundation;
Funds: $74,119,938;
Positions: 10,362.
National Grantee: Asociacion Nacional Pro Personas Mayores;
Funds: $7,697,076;
Positions: 1,075.
National Grantee: Easter Seals;
Funds: $16,077,169;
Positions: 2,248.
National Grantee: Experience Works;
Funds: $86,033,517;
Positions: 12,029.
National Grantee: Mature Services;
Funds: $5,514,963;
Positions: 771.
National Grantee: National Able Network;
Funds: $5,435,364;
Positions: 760.
National Grantee: National Asian Pacific Center on Aging;
Funds: $5,978,047;
Positions: 836.
National Grantee: National Caucus and Center on Black Aged;
Funds: $15,228,375;
Positions: 2,129.
National Grantee: National Council on Aging;
Funds: $21,602,605;
Positions: 3,020.
National Grantee: National Indian Council on Aging;
Funds: $6,027,252;
Positions: 842.
National Grantee: Senior Service America;
Funds: $50,290,679;
Positions: 7,030.
National Grantee: SER - Jobs for Progress;
Funds: $26,168,160;
Positions: 3,658.
National Grantee: USDA Forest Service;
Funds: $20,369,239;
Positions: 2,848.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II:
Table 7: Total Funds and Positions by State for Program Year 2005:
State Grantee: TOTAL;
National: Funds: $340,542,384;
National: Positions: 47,608;
State: Funds: $92,860,928;
State: Positions: 12,982;
Total: Funds: $433,403,312;
Total: Positions: 60,590.
State Grantee: Alabama;
National: Funds: $6,320,471;
National: Positions: 884;
State: Funds: $1,615,788;
State: Positions: 226;
Total: Funds: $7,936,259;
Total: Positions: 1,110.
State Grantee: Alaska;
National: Funds: $0;
National: Positions: 0;
State: Funds: $1,864,917;
State: Positions: 261;
Total: Funds: $1,864,917;
Total: Positions: 261.
State Grantee: Arizona;
National: Funds: $4,508,899;
National: Positions: 630;
State: Funds: $1,160,235;
State: Positions: 162;
Total: Funds: $5,669,134;
Total: Positions: 792.
State Grantee: Arkansas;
National: Funds: $6,213,586;
National: Positions: 869;
State: Funds: $1,587,316;
State: Positions: 222;
Total: Funds: $7,800,902;
Total: Positions: 1,091.
State Grantee: California;
National: Funds: $29,193,091;
National: Positions: 4,079;
State: Funds: $7,481,025;
State: Positions: 1,045;
Total: Funds: $36,674,116;
Total: Positions: 5,124.
State Grantee: Colorado;
National: Funds: $3,448,825;
National: Positions: 482;
State: Funds: $882,633;
State: Positions: 123;
Total: Funds: $4,331,458;
Total: Positions: 605.
State Grantee: Connecticut;
National: Funds: $3,748,103;
National: Positions: 524;
State: Funds: $953,812;
State: Positions: 133;
Total: Funds: $4,701,915;
Total: Positions: 657.
State Grantee: Delaware;
National: Funds: $0;
National: Positions: 0;
State: Funds: $1,864,917;
State: Positions: 261;
Total: Funds: $1,864,917;
Total: Positions: 261.
State Grantee: District of Columbia;
National: Funds: $1,959,560;
National: Positions: 274;
State: Funds: $505,378;
State: Positions: 71;
Total: Funds: $2,464,938;
Total: Positions: 345.
State Grantee: Florida;
National: Funds: $20,122,897;
National: Positions: 2,813;
State: Funds: $5,146,318;
State: Positions: 718;
Total: Funds: $25,269,215;
Total: Positions: 3,531.
State Grantee: Georgia;
National: Funds: $7,560,338;
National: Positions: 1,057;
State: Funds: $1,936,098;
State: Positions: 271;
Total: Funds: $9,496,436;
Total: Positions: 1,328.
State Grantee: Hawaii;
National: Funds: $0;
National: Positions: 0;
State: Funds: $1,864,917;
State: Positions: 261;
Total: Funds: $1,864,917;
Total: Positions: 261.
State Grantee: Idaho;
National: Funds: $1,936,240;
National: Positions: 271;
State: Funds: $464,305;
State: Positions: 65;
Total: Funds: $2,400,545;
Total: Positions: 336.
State Grantee: Illinois;
National: Funds: $13,248,612;
National: Positions: 1,852;
State: Funds: $3,395,289;
State: Positions: 475;
Total: Funds: $16,643,901;
Total: Positions: 2,327.
State Grantee: Indiana;
National: Funds: $8,928,466;
National: Positions: 1,248;
State: Funds: $2,284,880;
State: Positions: 319;
Total: Funds: $11,213,346;
Total: Positions: 1,567.
State Grantee: Iowa;
National: Funds: $4,368,036;
National: Positions: 611;
State: Funds: $1,117,527;
State: Positions: 156;
Total: Funds: $5,485,563;
Total: Positions: 767.
State Grantee: Kansas;
National: Funds: $3,510,095;
National: Positions: 491;
State: Funds: $889,751;
State: Positions: 124;
Total: Funds: $4,399,846;
Total: Positions: 615.
State Grantee: Kentucky;
National: Funds: $6,462,984;
National: Positions: 904;
State: Funds: $1,658,495;
State: Positions: 232;
Total: Funds: $8,121,479;
Total: Positions: 1,136.
State Grantee: Louisiana;
National: Funds: $5,691,272;
National: Positions: 795;
State: Funds: $1,473,427;
State: Positions: 206;
Total: Funds: $7,164,699;
Total: Positions: 1,001.
State Grantee: Maine;
National: Funds: $2,102,073;
National: Positions: 294;
State: Funds: $540,969;
State: Positions: 76;
Total: Funds: $2,643,042;
Total: Positions: 370.
State Grantee: Maryland;
National: Funds: $4,688,692;
National: Positions: 655;
State: Funds: $1,202,943;
State: Positions: 168;
Total: Funds: $5,891,635;
Total: Positions: 823.
State Grantee: Massachusetts;
National: Funds: $7,416,501;
National: Positions: 1,037;
State: Funds: $1,900,508;
State: Positions: 266;
Total: Funds: $9,317,009;
Total: Positions: 1,303.
State Grantee: Michigan;
National: Funds: $11,355,634;
National: Positions: 1,587;
State: Funds: $2,911,264;
State: Positions: 407;
Total: Funds: $14,266,898;
Total: Positions: 1,994.
State Grantee: Minnesota;
National: Funds: $8,126,440;
National: Positions: 1,136;
State: Funds: $2,071,340;
State: Positions: 290;
Total: Funds: $10,197,780;
Total: Positions: 1,426.
State Grantee: Mississippi;
National: Funds: $4,204,146;
National: Positions: 588;
State: Funds: $1,081,937;
State: Positions: 151;
Total: Funds: $5,826,083;
Total: Positions: 739.
State Grantee: Missouri;
National: Funds: $8,201,648;
National: Positions: 1,147;
State: Funds: $2,156,756;
State: Positions: 302;
Total: Funds: $10,358,404;
Total: Positions: 1,449.
State Grantee: Montana;
National: Funds: $2,263,238;
National: Positions: 317;
State: Funds: $548,087;
State: Positions: 77;
Total: Funds: $2,811,325;
Total: Positions: 394.
State Grantee: Nebraska;
National: Funds: $2,606,361;
National: Positions: 365;
State: Funds: $669,093;
State: Positions: 94;
Total: Funds: $3,275,454;
Total: Positions: 459.
State Grantee: Nevada;
National: Funds: $1,723,459;
National: Positions: 241;
State: Funds: $464,305;
State: Positions: 65;
Total: Funds: $2,187,764;
Total: Positions: 306.
State Grantee: New Hampshire;
National: Funds: $1,642,685;
National: Positions: 230;
State: Funds: $464,305;
State: Positions: 65;
Total: Funds: $2,106,990;
Total: Positions: 295.
State Grantee: New Jersey;
National: Funds: $9,641,033;
National: Positions: 1,348;
State: Funds: $2,462,830;
State: Positions: 344;
Total: Funds: $12,103,863;
Total: Positions: 1,692.
State Grantee: New Mexico;
National: Funds: $1,992,155;
National: Positions: 279;
State: Funds: $491,143;
State: Positions: 69;
Total: Funds: $2,483,298;
Total: Positions: 348.
State Grantee: New York;
National: Funds: $22,540,759;
National: Positions: 3,151;
State: Funds: $5,765,585;
State: Positions: 805;
Total: Funds: $28,306,344;
Total: Positions: 3,956.
State Grantee: North Carolina;
National: Funds: $8,921,341;
National: Positions: 1,247;
State: Funds: $2,284,880;
State: Positions: 319;
Total: Funds: $11,206,221;
Total: Positions: 1,566.
State Grantee: North Dakota;
National: Funds: $2,045,068;
National: Positions: 286;
State: Funds: $526,732;
State: Positions: 74;
Total: Funds: $2,571,800;
Total: Positions: 360.
State Grantee: Ohio;
National: Funds: $14,871,277;
National: Positions: 2,079;
State: Funds: $3,808,133;
State: Positions: 532;
Total: Funds: $18,679,410;
Total: Positions: 2,611.
State Grantee: Oklahoma;
National: Funds: $5,467,186;
National: Positions: 765;
State: Funds: $1,402,248;
State: Positions: 196;
Total: Funds: $6,869,434;
Total: Positions: 961.
State Grantee: Oregon;
National: Funds: $5,016,473;
National: Positions: 701;
State: Funds: $1,281,241;
State: Positions: 179;
Total: Funds: $6,297,714;
Total: Positions: 880.
State Grantee: Pennsylvania;
National: Funds: $18,297,675;
National: Positions: 2,558;
State: Funds: $4,669,412;
State: Positions: 653;
Total: Funds: $22,967,087;
Total: Positions: 3,211.
State Grantee: Puerto Rico;
National: Funds: $4,688,692;
National: Positions: 655;
State: Funds: $1,195,825;
State: Positions: 167;
Total: Funds: $5,884,517;
Total: Positions: 822.
State Grantee: Rhode Island;
National: Funds: $1,809,921;
National: Positions: 253;
State: Funds: $469,788;
State: Positions: 66;
Total: Funds: $2,279,709;
Total: Positions: 319.
State Grantee: South Carolina;
National: Funds: $4,645,938;
National: Positions: 650;
State: Funds: $1,188,707;
State: Positions: 166;
Total: Funds: $5,834,645;
Total: Positions: 816.
State Grantee: South Dakota;
National: Funds: $2,360,955;
National: Positions: 330;
State: Funds: $605,030;
State: Positions: 85;
Total: Funds: $2,965,985;
Total: Positions: 415.
State Grantee: Tennessee;
National: Funds: $6,968,906;
National: Positions: 974;
State: Funds: $1,779,502;
State: Positions: 249;
Total: Funds: $8,748,408;
Total: Positions: 1,223.
State Grantee: Texas;
National: Funds: $18,928,589;
National: Positions: 2,646;
State: Funds: $4,840,245;
State: Positions: 677;
Total: Funds: $23,768,834;
Total: Positions: 3,323.
State Grantee: Utah;
National: Funds: $2,273,090;
National: Positions: 318;
State: Funds: $583,676;
State: Positions: 82;
Total: Funds: $2,856,766;
Total: Positions: 400.
State Grantee: Vermont;
National: Funds: $1,866,926;
National: Positions: 261;
State: Funds: $484,024;
State: Positions: 68;
Total: Funds: $2,350,950;
Total: Positions: 329.
State Grantee: Virginia;
National: Funds: $7,392,768;
National: Positions: 1,033;
State: Funds: $1,893,389;
State: Positions: 265;
Total: Funds: $9,286,157;
Total: Positions: 1,298.
State Grantee: Washington;
National: Funds: $5,047,100;
National: Positions: 706;
State: Funds: $1,288,359;
State: Positions: 180;
Total: Funds: $6,335,459;
Total: Positions: 886.
State Grantee: West Virginia;
National: Funds: $3,833,611;
National: Positions: 536;
State: Funds: $982,285;
State: Positions: 137;
Total: Funds: $4,815,896;
Total: Positions: 673.
State Grantee: Wisconsin;
National: Funds: $8,737,884;
National: Positions: 1,221;
State: Funds: $2,235,285;
State: Positions: 312;
Total: Funds: $10,972,938;
Total: Positions: 1,533.
State Grantee: Wyoming;
National: Funds: $1,642,685;
National: Positions: 230;
State: Funds: $464,305;
State: Positions: 65;
Total: Funds: $2,106,990;
Total: Positions: 295.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Summary of SCSEP Grantee Performance Data for Benchmark
Year, Program Year 2004:
The following baseline performance data for SCSEP grantees are from
benchmark program year 2004 (July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005). According
to the Department of Labor, four SCSEP measures will contribute to a
grantee's overall performance in program year 2005, the first year for
which grantees will be held accountable for their performance.
The measures are:
Placement: the number of participants attaining unsubsidized
employment, either full-or part-time, for at least 30 days of the first
90 days after exiting the program, divided by the number of authorized
SCSEP positions.
Employment Retention: the rate of retention in unsubsidized employment
6 months after placement.
Service Level: the number of a grantee's participants divided by the
number of the grantee's authorized positions.
Service to Most-in-Need: the percentage of participants who are at
least 60 years old and who have at least one of several additional
barriers to employment, such as language barriers, poor employment
history, or a physical or mental disability.
These figures were provided by the Department of Labor and are included
in this testimony for contextual purposes only. GAO has not verified
the accuracy or reliability of these data.
Table 8: SCSEP National Grantee Performance, Program Year 2004:
Grantee Name: AARP Foundation;
Placement Rate: Goal: 35.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 47.7%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 53.2%;
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 214.6%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 50.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 54.3%.
Grantee Name: Asociacion Nacional pro Personas Mayores;
Placement Rate: Goal: 22.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 22.5%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 42.0%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 133.2%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 62.7%.
Grantee Name: Easter Seals;
Placement Rate: Goal: 27.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 17.0%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 69.8%;
Service Level: Goal: 147.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 145.3%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 72.4%.
Grantee Name: Experience Works;
Placement Rate: Goal: 29.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 21.6%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 64.4%;
Service Level: Goal: 142.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 153.3%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 65.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 66.5%.
Grantee Name: Mature Services;
Placement Rate: Goal: 30.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 24.2%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 74.5%;
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 145.9%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 70.3%.
Grantee Name: National ABLE Network;
Placement Rate: Goal: 30.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 20.2%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 44.8%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 162.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%;
Service to Most- in-Need: Actual: 57.5%.
Grantee Name: National Asian Pacific Center on Aging;
Placement Rate: Goal: 26.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 20.5%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 58.7%;
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 170.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 69.7%.
Grantee Name: National Caucus and Center on Black Aged;
Placement Rate: Goal: 24.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 17.8%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 59.8%;
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 142.7%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 72.7%.
Grantee Name: National Council on the Aging, Inc;
Placement Rate: Goal: 26.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 30.7%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 55.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 68.5%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 154.7%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 78.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 65.5%.
Grantee Name: National Indian Council on Aging;
Placement Rate: Goal: 20.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 8.6%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 80.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 79.5%;
Service Level: Goal: 155.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 137.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 60.7%.
Grantee Name: Senior Service America, Inc;
Placement Rate: Goal: 28.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 31.3%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 20.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 80.0%;
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 171.6%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 60.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 59.0%.
Grantee Name: SER - Jobs for Progress National;
Placement Rate: Goal: 20.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 17.1%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 40.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 69.7%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 132.9%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 70.0%.
Grantee Name: USDA Forest Service;
Placement Rate: Goal: 33.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 17.0%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 64.9%;
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 129.1%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most- in-Need: Actual: 62.6%.
Source: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration:
[End of table]
Table 9: SCSEP State Grantee Performance, Program Year 2004:
Grantee Name: Alabama;
Placement Rate: Goal: 22.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 23.8%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 64.0%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 156.8%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 67.4%.
Grantee Name: Alaska;
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 36.0%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 82.5%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 205.3%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 40.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 49.7%.
Grantee Name: Arizona;
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 14.9%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 75.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 92.3%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 154.6%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 69.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 70.3%.
Grantee Name: Arkansas;
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 19.3%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 89.7%;
Service Level: Goal: 148.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 157.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 64.0%.
Grantee Name: California;
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 21.0%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 70.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 74.6%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 177.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 68.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 69.0%.
Grantee Name: Colorado;
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 27.4%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 66.7%;
Service Level: Goal: 155.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 175.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 64.1%.
Grantee Name: Connecticut;
Placement Rate: Goal: 34.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 36.7%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 66.7%;
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 189.8%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 61.3%.
Grantee Name: Delaware;
Placement Rate: Goal: 28.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 28.3%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 82.6%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 160.3%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 57.0%.
Grantee Name: District of Columbia;
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 29.6%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 100.0%;
Service Level: Goal: 147.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 147.9%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%;
Service to Most- in-Need: Actual: 79.0%.
Grantee Name: Florida;
Placement Rate: Goal: 30.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 31.5%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 86.5%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 194.1%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 60.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 71.4%.
Grantee Name: Georgia;
Placement Rate: Goal: 26.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 35.7%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 82.5%;
Service Level: Goal: 175.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 183.8%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 67.2%.
Grantee Name: Hawaii;
Placement Rate: Goal: 22.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 26.0%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 40.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 85.0%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 174.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 65.8%.
Grantee Name: Idaho;
Placement Rate: Goal: 30.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 30.8%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 83.3%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 144.6%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 50.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 58.5%.
Grantee Name: Illinois;
Placement Rate: Goal: 22.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 17.7%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 70.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 87.9%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 154.2%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 60.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 59.5%.
Grantee Name: Indiana;
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 19.3%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 68.3%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 142.7%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 50.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 61.6%.
Grantee Name: Iowa;
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 24.2%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 83.3%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 144.6%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 65.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 53.3%.
Grantee Name: Kansas;
Placement Rate: Goal: 21.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 11.2%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 22.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 90.9%;
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 137.6%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 72.1%.
Grantee Name: Kentucky;
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 15.0%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 88.9%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 127.5%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 66.0%.
Grantee Name: Louisiana;
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 13.0%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 100.0%;
Service Level: Goal: 155.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 143.5%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 66.0%.
Grantee Name: Maine;
Placement Rate: Goal: 20.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 21.0%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 44.4%;
Service Level: Goal: 120.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 135.5%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 64.3%.
Grantee Name: Maryland;
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 11.8%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 86.7%;
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 134.9%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 63.6%.
Grantee Name: Massachusetts;
Placement Rate: Goal: 22.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 18.7%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 81.3%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 137.9%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 69.3%.
Grantee Name: Michigan;
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 18.8%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 80.6%;
Service Level: Goal: 148.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 133.9%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 59.9%.
Grantee Name: Minnesota;
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 14.8%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 57.9%;
Service Level: Goal: 120.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 132.6%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 65.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 65.0%.
Grantee Name: Mississippi;
Placement Rate: Goal: 20.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 7.9%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 50.0%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 136.2%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 65.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 71.0%.
Grantee Name: Missouri;
Placement Rate: Goal: 20.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 5.9%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 49.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 45.5%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 130.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 55.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 69.8%.
Grantee Name: Montana;
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 28.6%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 40.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 84.6%;
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 151.9%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 63.2%.
Grantee Name: Nebraska;
Placement Rate: Goal: 22.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 17.0%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 55.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 66.7%;
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 134.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 60.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 67.5%.
Grantee Name: Nevada;
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 70.8%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 20.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 90.3%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 236.9%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 79.2%.
Grantee Name: New Hampshire;
Placement Rate: Goal: 20.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 12.3%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 57.1%;
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 93.8%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 47.5%.
Grantee Name: New Jersey;
Placement Rate: Goal: 32.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 7.5%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 86.7%;
Service Level: Goal: 160.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 137.6%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 81.1%.
Grantee Name: New Mexico;
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 8.7%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 50.0%;
Service Level: Goal: 155.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 100.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 63.8%.
Grantee Name: New York;
Placement Rate: Goal: 26.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 23.5%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 73.8%;
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 151.4%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 63.9%.
Grantee Name: North Carolina;
Placement Rate: Goal: 22.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 15.0%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 69.7%;
Service Level: Goal: 160.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 134.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 65.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 60.7%.
Grantee Name: North Dakota;
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 1.4%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 45.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 0.0%;
Service Level: Goal: 142.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 104.1%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 75.3%.
Grantee Name: Ohio;
Placement Rate: Goal: 27.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 22.4%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 55.4%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 157.1%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 63.1%.
Grantee Name: Oklahoma;
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 21.3%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 81.8%;
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 149.7%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 72.9%.
Grantee Name: Oregon;
Placement Rate: Goal: 29.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 27.3%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 25.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 72.7%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 182.8%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 50.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 53.0%.
Grantee Name: Pennsylvania;
Placement Rate: Goal: 27.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 16.4%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 60.0%;
Service Level: Goal: 170.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 137.4%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 66.9%.
Grantee Name: Puerto Rico;
Placement Rate: Goal: 20.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 9.5%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 100.0%;
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 125.6%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 52.1%.
Grantee Name: Rhode Island;
Placement Rate: Goal: 35.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 30.0%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 50.0%;
Service Level: Goal: 155.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 162.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 75.3%.
Grantee Name: South Carolina;
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 7.2%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 40.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 25.0%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 118.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 67.5%.
Grantee Name: South Dakota;
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 24.7%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 60.0%;
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 148.2%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 64.3%.
Grantee Name: Tennessee;
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 18.0%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 78.9%;
Service Level: Goal: 142.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 143.6%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 70.5%.
Grantee Name: Texas;
Placement Rate: Goal: 35.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 31.4%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 40.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 58.3%;
Service Level: Goal: 165.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 155.2%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 56.6%.
Grantee Name: Utah;
Placement Rate: Goal: 35.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 45.1%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 40.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 92.3%;
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 159.8%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 55.0%.
Grantee Name: Vermont;
Placement Rate: Goal: 30.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 30.0%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 83.3%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 170.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 37.6%.
Grantee Name: Virginia;
Placement Rate: Goal: 33.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 22.6%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 75.0%;
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 146.2%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 69.7%.
Grantee Name: Washington;
Placement Rate: Goal: 20.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 46.5%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 82.1%;
Service Level: Goal: 125.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 200.8%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 56.9%.
Grantee Name: West Virginia;
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 13.8%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 37.5%;
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 113.8%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 66.9%.
Grantee Name: Wisconsin;
Placement Rate: Goal: 30.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 20.6%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 85.0%;
Service Level: Goal: 160.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 157.9%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 65.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 55.4%.
Grantee Name: Wyoming;
Placement Rate: Goal: 45.0%;
Placement Rate: Actual: 33.8%;
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%;
Retention Rate: Actual: 76.9%;
Service Level: Goal: 175.0%;
Service Level: Actual: 183.1%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%;
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 58.0%.
Source: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration:
[End of table]
Appendix IV: Aggregate SCSEP Grantee Performance for Benchmark Year,
Program Year 2004:
These figures were provided by the Department of Labor and are included
in this testimony for contextual purposes only. GAO has not verified
the accuracy or reliability of these data.
Table 10: Aggregate National Grantee Performance for Program Year 2004:
Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for Satisfactory Performance:
National Grantee: Senior Service America, Inc;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 182.1%.
National Grantee: AARP Foundation;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 123.6%.
National Grantee: SER - Jobs for Progress National;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 113.8%.
National Grantee: National Council on the Aging, Inc;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 109.2%.
National Grantee: Mature Services;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 103.7%.
National Grantee: Experience Works;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 103.4%.
National Grantee: National Asian Pacific Center on Aging;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 103.3%.
National Grantee: National Caucus and Center on Black Aged;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 99.0%.
National Grantee: Easter Seals;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 98.0%.
National Grantee: Asociacion Nacional pro Personas Mayores;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 92.7%.
National Grantee: USDA Forest Service;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 89.2%.
National Grantee: National ABLE Network;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 86.1%.
Did Not Meet 80% Threshold for Satisfactory Performance:
National Grantee: National Indian Council on Aging;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 77.9%.
Source: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration:
[End of table]
Table 11: Aggregate State Grantee Performance for Program Year 2004:
Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for Satisfactory Performance:
State Grantee: Nevada;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 258.5%.
State Grantee: Kansas;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 165.3%.
State Grantee: Washington;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 157.1%.
State Grantee: Oregon;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 155.4%.
State Grantee: Alaska;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 145.0%.
State Grantee: Hawaii;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 137.3%.
State Grantee: Utah;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 134.6%.
State Grantee: Florida;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 133.9%.
State Grantee: District of Columbia;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 133.6%.
State Grantee: Montana;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 132.7%.
State Grantee: Georgia;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 125.8%.
State Grantee: Idaho;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 122.4%.
State Grantee: Arkansas;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 115.2%.
State Grantee: Delaware;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 114.2%.
State Grantee: Connecticut;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 112.4%.
State Grantee: Iowa;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 112.2%.
State Grantee: Colorado;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 111.4%.
State Grantee: Alabama;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 111.1%.
State Grantee: Oklahoma;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 110.8%.
State Grantee: Vermont;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 110.5%.
State Grantee: Indiana;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 109.7%.
State Grantee: Massachusetts;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 109.6%.
State Grantee: Tennessee;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 109.5%.
State Grantee: New York;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 107.6%.
State Grantee: Louisiana;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 106.8%.
State Grantee: Kentucky;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 105.8%.
State Grantee: Wisconsin;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 105.6%.
State Grantee: Michigan;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 104.8%.
State Grantee: California;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 104.7%.
State Grantee: Wyoming;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 104.1%.
State Grantee: Illinois;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 103.9%.
State Grantee: Virginia;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 103.8%.
State Grantee: Puerto Rico;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 100.9%.
State Grantee: Nebraska;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 100.9%.
State Grantee: Maryland;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 100.4%.
State Grantee: South Dakota;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 100.4%.
State Grantee: Texas;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 100.1%.
State Grantee: Maine;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 99.6%.
State Grantee: Arizona;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 98.8%.
State Grantee: New Jersey;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 97.7%.
State Grantee: Rhode Island;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 97.7%.
State Grantee: Minnesota;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 97.7%.
State Grantee: Ohio;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 97.5%.
State Grantee: North Carolina;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 96.1%.
State Grantee: Pennsylvania;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 87.7%.
State Grantee: Mississippi;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 86.5%.
State Grantee: Missouri;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 85.6%.
Did Not Meet 80% Threshold for Satisfactory Performance:
State Grantee: New Hampshire;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 76.6%.
State Grantee: West Virginia;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 75.1%.
State Grantee: New Mexico;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 72.6%.
State Grantee: South Carolina;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 68.0%.
State Grantee: North Dakota;
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for
Satisfactory Performance: 44.9%.
Source: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration:
[End of table]
Related GAO Products:
Older Workers: Labor Can Help Employers and Employees Plan Better for
the Future. GAO-06-80. Washington, D.C.: Dec. 5, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to
Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. GAO-06-82.
Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2005.
Redefining Retirement: Options for Older Americans. GAO-05- 620T.
Washington, D.C.: Apr. 27, 2005.
Older Workers: Policies of Other Nations to Increase Labor Force
Participation. GAO-03-307. Washington, D.C.: Feb.13, 2003.
Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other
Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2003.
Older Workers: Demographic Trends Pose Challenges for Employers and
Workers. GAO-02-85. Washington, D.C.: Nov.16, 2001.
FOOTNOTES
[1] For further information on older worker issues please see the
following reports and testimonies: GAO, Older Workers: Labor Can Help
Employers and Employees Plan Better for the Future, GAO-06-80,
(Washington, D.C.: December 5, 2005);
Older Workers: Policies of Other Nations to Increase Labor Force
Participation, GAO-03-307 (Washington, D.C.: Feb.13, 2003);Older
Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other
Services, GAO-03-350 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2003); and Older
Workers: Demographic Trends Pose Challenges for Employers and Workers,
GAO-02-85 (Washington, D.C.: Nov.16, 2001).
[2] A program year begins on July 1 of a year and ends on June 30 of
the following year. A program year is designated by the year in which
it begins. Thus program year 2005 began on July 1, 2005 and ends on
June 30, 2006.
[3] Supportive services assist participants to successfully participate
in SCSEP. Such services include payments for transportation; health
care and medical services; incidentals such as work shoes, uniforms,
and tools; child and adult care; and temporary shelter.
[4] The formula for distributing SCSEP funding to national and state
grantees applies to the balance after Labor reserves funds for private
employment projects, the territories, and national grantees serving
older Indians and Pacific Island and Asian Americans. For example, in
program year 2005 the total SCSEP appropriation was about $439 million.
After making the required reservations, Labor distributed $421 million
to national and state grantees using the funding formula.
[5] The $437 million does not include $2 million reserved for private
employment projects.
[6] 0.75 percent of the total SCSEP appropriation is also used to fund
positions in American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Marianas, and the US
Virgin Islands. Each territory operates its own SCSEP program--national
grantees do not serve these areas.
[7] The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) introduced common
performance measures as part of efforts to link program performance to
the budget. Common measures apply to job training and employment
programs administered by the U.S. Departments of Labor, Education,
Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and
Veterans Affairs.
[8] GAO, Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized
Jobs and Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve
Access to Other Services, GAO-03-350 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2003).
[9] This measure is defined as the total number of participants served
to a grantee's authorized number of positions adjusted for the
difference in wages required paid in a state or area.
