Trade Adjustment Assistance
Labor Should Take Action to Ensure Performance Data Are Complete, Accurate and Accessible Gao ID: GAO-06-496 April 25, 2006In the current tight budgetary environment, program performance is likely to be an increasingly significant factor used to help policymakers assess programs and determine funding levels. Given concerns over the quality of performance data for the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program and the importance of having meaningful information to assess program performance, we examined (1) whether the TAA performance data provide a credible picture of the program's performance, (2) what TAA performance data the Department of Labor (Labor) makes available to the public and states and the usefulness of the data for managing the program, and (3) what Labor is doing to address issues with the quality of TAA data submitted by states.
The performance information that Labor makes available on the TAA program does not provide a complete and credible picture of the program's performance. Only half the states are including all participants, as required, in the performance data they submit to Labor--states were more likely to report participants who received training than those who received other benefits and services but not training. In addition, many states are not using all available data sources to determine participants' employment outcomes. This may result in lower reported outcomes because states may be inaccurately recording some workers as unemployed who actually have jobs. To compile their performance data, some states are using manual processes or automated systems that lack key capabilities to help minimizes errors, but many states have plans to improve their systems' capabilities. Labor reports data on TAA activity levels, services provided to TAA participants, and key performance measures. The performance data may be useful for providing a long-term national picture of program outcomes, but it represents participants who left the program up to 30 months earlier and, thus, is not useful for gauging the TAA program's current performance. Also, the performance information is not displayed using categories that would be informative to policymakers, such as type of service received and industry of dislocation. Most states find the performance information they receive from Labor to be at least moderately useful, but many want more information. Labor has taken steps to improve the quality of TAA performance data, but issues remain. In 2003, Labor began requiring states to validate their data, and most states reported that this increased awareness of data quality at the state and local level. However, the validation process does not address the problem of participants being excluded from the performance data. In fiscal year 2006, Labor instituted a set of common measures, and many states reported they are experiencing delays in implementing all required changes. States also expressed interest in receiving more opportunities to share lessons learned on topics relevant to TAA data quality.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-496, Trade Adjustment Assistance: Labor Should Take Action to Ensure Performance Data Are Complete, Accurate and Accessible
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-496
entitled 'Trade Adjustment Assistance: Labor Should Take Action to
Ensure Performance Data Are Complete, Accurate, and Accessible' which
was released on May 25, 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.
Report to the Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
April 2006:
Trade Adjustment Assistance:
Labor Should Take Action to Ensure Performance Data Are Complete,
Accurate, and Accessible:
Trade Adjustment Assistance:
GAO-06-496:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-496, a report to Committee on Finance, U.S.
Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In the current tight budgetary environment, program performance is
likely to be an increasingly significant factor used to help
policymakers assess programs and determine funding levels. Given
concerns over the quality of performance data for the Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) program and the importance of having meaningful
information to assess program performance, we examined (1) whether the
TAA performance data provide a credible picture of the program‘s
performance, (2) what TAA performance data the Department of Labor
(Labor) makes available to the public and states and the usefulness of
the data for managing the program, and (3) what Labor is doing to
address issues with the quality of TAA data submitted by states.
What GAO Found:
The performance information that Labor makes available on the TAA
program does not provide a complete and credible picture of the
program‘s performance. Only half the states are including all
participants, as required, in the performance data they submit to
Labor–states were more likely to report participants who received
training than those who received other benefits and services but not
training. In addition, many states are not using all available data
sources to determine participants‘ employment outcomes. This may result
in lower reported outcomes because states may be inaccurately recording
some workers as unemployed who actually have jobs. To compile their
performance data, some states are using manual processes or automated
systems that lack key capabilities to help minimizes errors, but many
states have plans to improve their systems‘ capabilities. Labor reports
data on TAA activity levels, services provided to TAA participants, and
key performance measures. The performance data may be useful for
providing a long-term national picture of program outcomes, but it
represents participants who left the program up to 30 months earlier
and, thus, is not useful for gauging the TAA program‘s current
performance. Also, the performance information is not displayed using
categories that would be informative to policymakers, such as type of
service received and industry of dislocation. Most states find the
performance information they receive from Labor to be at least
moderately useful, but many want more information. Labor has taken
steps to improve the quality of TAA performance data, but issues
remain. In 2003, Labor began requiring states to validate their data,
and most states reported that this increased awareness of data quality
at the state and local level. However, the validation process does not
address the problem of participants being excluded from the performance
data. In fiscal year 2006, Labor instituted a set of common measures,
and many states reported they are experiencing delays in implementing
all required changes. States also expressed interest in receiving more
opportunities to share lessons learned on topics relevant to TAA data
quality.
Figure: Number of States Including All or Most Participants in TAA
Performance Data, by Type of Service Received:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending actions for Labor to help improve the completeness
and accuracy of performance data, to make the performance data more
informative, and to increase opportunities for states to share lessons
learned on issues relevant to TAA data quality. In its comments, Labor
did not disagree with our findings and recommendations and said the
report will be helpful in its continuing efforts to improve the quality
of TAA performance data.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-496].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Sigurd R. Nilsen at (202)
512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
TAA Data Do Not Provide a Complete, Credible Picture of the Program's
Performance:
Labor Makes Some TAA Performance Data Available, but Its Usefulness Is
Limited:
Labor Has Taken Steps to Improve the Quality of Performance Data, but
Issues Remain:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Program Information in State TAA IT Systems:
Appendix III: State TAA Administrative Allocations, Fiscal Years 2005-
2006:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Related Products:
Tables:
Table 1: TAA National Performance Goals and Outcomes, Fiscal Years 2004
and 2005:
Table 2: Percentage of Participants Included in States' TAPR
Submissions Who Received Training:
Table 3: How TAA Performance Measures Changed under Common Measures:
Table 4: Site Visit States and Local Areas:
Table 5: Program Information for Other U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration Programs Contained in State IT
Systems Used to Compile TAPR Submissions:
Table 6: State TAA Training and Administrative Allocations, Fiscal
Years 2005-2006:
Figures:
Figure 1: Participants Who Received Training Are Most Likely to Be
Reported in States' TAPR Submissions:
Figure 2: Many States Are Using WRIS:
Figure 3: Many States Are Not Using Supplemental Data:
Figure 4: Number of States with TAA IT Systems That Currently Have or
Will Be Adding Certain Capabilities:
Figure 5: Period between When a TAA Participant Exits the Program and
When Data Are Reported to Labor:
Figure 6: Fiscal Year 2004 TAA Performance Data Represent Exiters from
as early as Fiscal Year 2002:
Figure 7: Many States Found Labor's Performance Information to Be
Moderately Useful:
Figure 8: Most States Reported That Additional Performance Information
from Labor Would Be Useful for Program Management:
Figure 9: States' View of How Labor's Data Validation Efforts Have
Helped Them:
Figure 10: Most State Expressed Interest in Having More Opportunities
to Share Lessons Learned on Data Issues:
Figure 11: Most States Viewed Changes Needed for Common Measures to Be
a Burden:
Figure 12: Coordinating Exit Dates Was Change States Were Least Likely
to Expect to Have Completed in 2006:
Abbreviations:
ATAA: Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance:
ES: Employment Service:
HCTC: Health Coverage Tax Credit:
IT: information technology:
NAFTA-TAA: North American Free Trade Agreement Transitional Adjustment
Assistance:
OIG: Office of Inspector General:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
PART: Program Assessment Rating Tool:
TAA: Trade Adjustment Assistance:
TAPR: Trade Act Participant Report:
TRA: Trade Readjustment Allowance:
UI: Unemployment Insurance:
VETS: Veterans Employment and Training Program:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
WRIS: Wage Record Interchange System:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 25, 2006:
The Honorable Charles Grassley:
Chairman:
The Honorable Max Baucus:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Finance United States Senate:
More than 150,000 manufacturing workers lost their jobs in fiscal year
2004 due to international trade. Most of these workers were eligible
for services under the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, the
primary federal employment and training program serving trade-affected
workers. TAA, funded at about $1 billion in fiscal year 2005, provides
workers with a variety of services, including training and income
support after they exhaust their Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits.
The U.S. Department of Labor (Labor) oversees the program, and states
and local areas administer services to TAA participants. Despite the
role the TAA program plays in helping trade-affected workers transition
to new employment, program outcomes have shown mixed results. Labor
collects some key performance information from states and uses it to
track program performance against three national goals in the areas of
employment, job retention, and wages. Since 2001, the TAA program has
exceeded the national goal for job retention in every year but one.
However, it has failed to meet at least one of the national goals each
year, and in fiscal year 2003, the program failed to meet all three.
Further, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)--a diagnostic tool
that the Administration uses to help formulate the budget--rated the
program ineffective, in part because it failed to meet its national
goals. It is unclear, though, whether the outcomes reported in the
goals accurately reflect the program's achievements. Our previous work
and work by Labor's Inspector General have identified problems with the
performance data states submitted to Labor--information was often
incomplete, and many states did not validate the information they
reported to Labor. While Labor has taken some steps to improve the
performance data, it is not known whether the data currently collected
on TAA performance are reliable.
In the current tight budgetary environment, program performance is
likely to be an increasingly significant factor used to help
policymakers assess programs and determine funding levels. Given
concerns over the quality of TAA data and the importance of having
meaningful information to assess program performance, we examined (1)
whether the TAA performance data provide a credible picture of the
program's performance, (2) what TAA performance data Labor makes
available to the public and states and the usefulness of the data for
managing the program, and (3) what Labor is doing to address issues
with the quality of TAA data submitted by states.
To address these questions, we conducted a Web-based survey of
workforce officials in the 46 states that were allocated TAA funds in
fiscal year 2005, and we obtained a 100 percent response rate.[Footnote
1] In addition, to gather in-depth information about how states manage
their TAA performance data, we conducted site visits in California,
Iowa, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia, where we interviewed state officials
and visited at least one local area in each state. We selected these
states because they represent different TAA data collection approaches
(that is, states where data are entered into information technology
[IT] systems at the local level and those where data are entered at the
state level), received a relatively large share of TAA funds in fiscal
year 2005, and are geographically dispersed. In addition, to gather
insights into data management strategies and requirements, we
interviewed Labor officials in headquarters and in the regional offices
and experts on data quality. We also reviewed legislation, guidance,
summaries of state TAA performance outcome information, participant
data submitted by states to Labor, and other relevant reports and
literature related to data quality. Our work was conducted between
December 2004 and March 2006 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. (See app. I for a detailed discussion of
our scope and methodology.)
Results in Brief:
The performance information that Labor makes available on the TAA
program does not provide a complete and credible picture of the
program's performance. Only half the states reported that the data they
submit to Labor for determining progress toward national performance
goals include all TAA participants who stop receiving benefits or
services--that is, exit the TAA program--as Labor requires. Other
states reported that they are more likely to include in their
performance data participants who received TAA-funded training rather
than those who received other TAA benefits but did not receive TAA-
funded training. Labor does not currently have a process in place, such
as a standard monitoring tool, to ensure that states are including all
exiting participants in their data. As a result, the performance data
are incomplete and may be skewed. Further, not all states obtain the
documentation they need to verify that TAA participants' exit dates,
used to develop the performance data, are accurate. Without such
documentation, there is no assurance that the right participants are
included and, therefore, that the employment outcomes are reliable.
Some states are not using all available data sources to determine TAA
participants' employment outcomes. This may result in lower reported
outcomes because states may be inaccurately recording some workers as
unemployed who actually have jobs. To compile TAA data, some states
have IT systems with limited capabilities that may hinder their ability
to ensure that the TAA data are complete and accurate. Nine states are
using manual rather than automated processes to compile their TAA
performance data, increasing the data's vulnerability to data entry
errors, and only about half of the states' TAA IT systems can perform
edit checks to help minimize errors. Many states are planning to make
improvements to their TAA IT systems' capabilities this year. State TAA
officials said that resource shortages contribute to their data
problems.
Labor reports data on TAA petition and certification activity, program
participation, and key performance measures, but this information may
not be useful for gauging current program performance. This performance
information may be helpful in providing a long-term national picture of
program outcomes, but it does not represent a current picture of
program performance. UI wage records--the primary data source for
tracking TAA performance--provide a fairly consistent national view of
TAA performance and allow for tracking outcomes over time. At the same
time, the UI wage records suffer from time delays and, together with
the use of longer-term outcome measures, such as employment retention,
affect the timing of states' performance reports to Labor and,
subsequently, the information that Labor makes publicly available. Most
of the outcome data reported in a given program year actually reflect
participants who left the program up to 2 years earlier. In addition,
Labor does not consistently report TAA data by state or by services or
benefits received--a step that would make the data more useful to
policymakers. Most states reported that they find the TAA performance
information they receive from Labor to be at least moderately useful,
but many states would like additional information from Labor, such as
how their TAA performance compares to that of other states and other
federal employment and training programs.
While it has limited authority to hold states accountable, Labor has
taken steps to improve the quality of TAA data submitted by states, but
these steps do not fully address all issues. Labor has no mechanism to
sanction states for poor performance or poor quality data because the
law and current regulations do not provide one. However, beginning in
2003, Labor implemented a new data validation process for its TAA
performance data that requires states to review a sample of
participants' records and compare the data recorded for certain data
elements to source files. While it is too soon to fully assess whether
Labor's efforts have improved data quality, most states reported that
Labor's new requirements have improved data accuracy and increased
awareness of data quality at the state and local level. Labor has taken
other steps to improve data quality such as providing additional
guidance, training, and technical assistance. Yet most states reported
that they do not currently have opportunities to share lessons learned
with other states on various topics related to TAA data quality and
expressed interest in having such opportunities. In fiscal year 2006,
Labor is requiring changes in some TAA data-reporting requirements in
order to implement a set of common measures for federally funded job
training programs that share similar goals. Many states reported that
the changes are burdensome, and some states are experiencing delays in
implementing the changes.
To help ensure that TAA participant data reported by states is
consistent, complete, and accurate, we recommend that Labor clarify
reporting and documentation requirements, provide guidance to regional
offices for assessing states' data collection processes, and create
opportunities for states to share lessons learned on data quality
issues. Finally, to make TAA performance information more useful for
program management, we recommend that Labor provide performance
information that is more detailed. In its written comments on a draft
of this report, Labor did not disagree with our findings and
recommendations and said the report will be helpful in its continuing
efforts to improve the quality of TAA performance data.
Background:
To assist workers who are laid off as a result of international trade,
Congress passed the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and created the Trade
Adjustment Assistance program. Historically, the main benefits
available through the program have been extended income support and
training. Participants are generally entitled to income support, but
the amount of funds available for training is limited by federal
statute. Labor certifies groups of laid-off workers as potentially
eligible for TAA benefits and services by investigating petitions that
are filed on the workers' behalf.[Footnote 2] Workers are eligible for
TAA if they were laid off as a result of international trade and were
involved in making a product or supplying component parts to or
performing finishing work for directly affected firms. Workers served
by the TAA program have generally been laid off from the manufacturing
sector.
Congress has amended the TAA program a number of times since its
inception. For example, in 1974 Congress eased program eligibility
requirements, and in 1988 Congress added a requirement that workers be
in training to receive income support. In 1993 Congress created a
separate North American Free Trade Agreement Transitional Adjustment
Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) program specifically for workers laid off
because of trade with Canada or Mexico.[Footnote 3] The most recent
amendments to the TAA program were included in the TAA Reform Act of
2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-210), which was signed into law in August 2002.
The Reform Act consolidated the former TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs into
a single TAA program, doubled the amount of funds available for
training annually, expanded program eligibility to more workers,
extended the time periods covered by the program, and added new
benefits.
Services Available under the TAA Program:
Under the current TAA program, eligible participants have access to a
wider range of benefits and services than before, including:
Training. Participants may receive up to 130 weeks of training,
including 104 weeks of vocational training and 26 weeks of remedial
training (e.g., English as a second language or literacy). On-the-job
training is also available under TAA. Participants in TAA-approved
training must attend training full-time.
Extended income support, or Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRA).
Participants may receive up to 104 weeks of extended income support
benefits after they exhaust the 26 weeks of UI benefits available in
most states. This total includes 78 weeks while participants are
completing vocational training and an additional 26 weeks, if
necessary, while participants are completing remedial training. The
amount of extended income support payments in a state is set by statute
at the state's UI benefit level.[Footnote 4]
During their first 26 weeks of extended income support, participants
must be enrolled in training, have completed training, or have a waiver
from this requirement; to qualify for more than 26 weeks of extended
income support, participants must be enrolled in training. The TAA
statute lists six reasons why a TAA participant may receive a waiver
from the training requirement, including that the worker possesses
marketable skills or that the approved training program is not
immediately available.[Footnote 5] States must review participants'
waivers at least every 30 days and if necessary may continue to renew
participants' waivers each month throughout the initial 26 weeks of
extended income support.
Job search and relocation benefits. Payments are available to help
participants search for a job in a different geographical area and to
relocate to a different area to take a job. Participants may receive up
to a maximum of $1,250 to conduct a job search. The maximum relocation
benefit includes 90 percent of the participant's relocation expenses
plus a lump sum payment of up to $1,250.
Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC). Eligible participants may receive a
tax credit covering 65 percent of their health insurance premiums for
certain health insurance plans. To be eligible for the credit, trade-
affected workers must be either receiving extended income support
payments, or they must be eligible for extended income support but are
still receiving UI payments, or they must be recipients of benefits
under the wage insurance program. As a result, trade-affected workers
who are still receiving UI rather than extended income support may
register for the HCTC only if they are in training, have completed
training, or have a waiver from the training requirement.
Wage insurance. The wage insurance program--known as the Alternative
TAA (ATAA) program--is a demonstration project designed for workers age
50 and older who forgo training, obtain reemployment within 26 weeks,
but take a pay cut. Provided the participant's annual earnings at his
or her new job are $50,000 or less, the benefit reimburses 50 percent
of the difference between the participant's pre-and post-layoff
earnings up to a maximum of $10,000 over 2 years.
Certification Process and Eligibility Requirements:
The process of enrolling trade-affected workers in the TAA program
begins when a petition for TAA assistance is filed with Labor on behalf
of a group of laid-off workers. Petitions may be filed by entities
including the employer experiencing the layoff, a group of at least
three affected workers, a union, or the state or local workforce
agency. The TAA statute lays out certain basic requirements that all
certified petitions must meet, including that a significant proportion
of workers employed by a company be laid off or threatened with layoff.
In addition to meeting these basic requirements, a petition must
demonstrate that the layoff is related to international trade. The law
requires Labor to complete its investigation, and either certify or
deny the petition, within 40 days after it has received it. When Labor
has certified a petition, it notifies the relevant state, which has
responsibility for contacting the workers covered by the petition,
informing them of the benefits available to them, and telling them when
and where to apply for benefits.
Workers generally receive services through a consolidated service
delivery structure called the one-stop system, where they can access a
broad range of services beyond TAA, including the Workforce Investment
Act (WIA) Dislocated Worker program, the Wagner-Peyser Employment
Service (ES) program, and services funded by the WIA National Emergency
Grants.[Footnote 6] Training for trade-affected workers may be funded
by TAA or by one of the WIA funding sources. Workers often meet one on
one with a case manager who may assess worker's skills and help decide
what services they need. Because the TAA program has limited funds that
can be used for case management and program administration, these case
management services are often performed by ES or WIA Dislocated Worker
program staff. When this occurs, participants are often co-enrolled in
WIA or ES as well as TAA.
TAA Funding:
About $750 million was appropriated for income support for trade-
affected workers for fiscal year 2005, while another $259 million was
appropriated for training, job search and relocation allowances, and
administrative costs.[Footnote 7] Of the $259 million, $220 million is
set aside for training, and Labor allocates 75 percent of it to states
according to a formula that takes into account each state's previous
year allocations, accrued expenditures, and participant levels. Labor
holds the remaining 25 percent of training funds in reserve, to
distribute to states throughout the year according to need. To cover
administrative costs associated with training under the TAA program,
Labor allocates additional administrative funds to each state equal to
15 percent of its training allocation.[Footnote 8]
TAA Performance Reporting System:
Labor is responsible for monitoring the performance of the TAA program.
In fiscal year 1999, Labor introduced a new participant outcomes
reporting system, the Trade Act Participant Report (TAPR), that was
designed to collect national information on TAA program participants,
services, and outcomes. States are required to submit TAPR reports to
Labor each quarter, with data on individuals who exited the TAA
program. The TAPR data submitted by states are used to calculate
national and state outcomes on the TAA performance measures for each
fiscal year, which include (1) the percentage of participants that
found jobs after exiting the program (reemployment rate), (2) the
percentage of those participants who were employed after exiting the
program who were still employed 9 months later (retention rate), and
(3) the earnings in their new jobs compared to prior earnings (wage
replacement rate).
Labor's guidance requires states to include in their TAPR submissions
all TAA participants who exit the program, that is, stop receiving
benefits or services. Under Labor's guidance, a participant is defined
as any individual who receives any TAA benefit or service, including
extended income support payments, training, or job search and
relocation allowances. According to this definition, participants would
include those who, for example, received only extended income support
and a waiver that allowed them to forgo training.
TAPR reports include data on each exiter's characteristics, services
received, and employment outcomes. Data on characteristics, for
example, should include the worker's date of birth, gender, ethnicity,
educational level, and layoff date. Data on services received should
include data on training (such as dates the participant entered and
completed training, and the type of training received), on other TAA
benefits received (such as extended income support, job search
allowance, and relocation allowance), and on co-enrollment in WIA or
other federal programs. Data on outcomes should include the date the
worker exited the TAA or other federal program, whether the worker was
employed in the first full quarter after exit, whether the worker was
employed in the third full quarter after exit, and the worker's
earnings in these quarters. Where possible, outcome data are to be
obtained from state UI wage records.
Labor uses the TAPR data to track TAA program outcomes against national
goals. Unlike the WIA programs, however, TAA has no individual state
performance goals, and states do not receive incentives or sanctions
based on their performance levels, nor are they otherwise held
accountable for their performance. At the national level, the TAA
program has failed to meet at least one of its performance goals each
year since 2001, the first year for which goals were set. Table 1 shows
goals and outcomes for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
Table 1: TAA National Performance Goals and Outcomes, Fiscal Years 2004
and 2005:
Measure: Wage replacement;
Fiscal year 2004: Goal: 90%;
Fiscal year 2004: Outcome: 73%;
Fiscal year 2005: 80%;
Fiscal year 2005: Outcome: 76%.
Measure: Reemployment rate;
Fiscal year 2004: Goal: 70%;
Fiscal year 2004: Outcome: 62%;
Fiscal year 2005: 70%;
Fiscal year 2005: Outcome: 70%.
Measure: Retention rate;
Fiscal year 2004: Goal: 88%;
Fiscal year 2004: Outcome: 86%;
Fiscal year 2005: 89%;
Fiscal year 2005: Outcome: 91%.
Source: Department of Labor.
Note: Bold denotes TAA program goal met or exceeded.
[End of table]
In addition to submitting TAPR data, states also submit data to Labor
on TAA services and expenditures each quarter through the Form 563.
Form 563 includes counts of participants receiving TAA services, while
TAPR includes individual-level data on former participants who have
exited the program. States are required to submit each quarter's Form
563 data about 1 month after the end of the quarter. Form 563 includes
data on services such as the number of new training participants (by
type of training--occupational, remedial, and on-the-job), the number
of workers in training at the end of the quarter, the number of
training waivers issued, and the number of recipients of job search and
relocation allowances, and expenditures on extended income support.
Common Measures:
In response to an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) initiative,
Labor recently began requiring states to implement common performance
measures for WIA programs.[Footnote 9] OMB established a set of common
measures to be applied to most federally funded job training programs
that share similar goals. Labor further defined the common measures for
all of its Employment and Training Administration programs and required
states to implement these measures beginning July 1, 2005. Because it
operates on a fiscal year rather than a program year basis, Labor
required the TAA program to implement the measures by October 1, 2005.
In addition to standardizing the performance measures, the common
measures guidance also standardizes the definition of exiters across
all programs. An exiter is defined as any participant who has not
received a service funded by the program or funded by a partner program
for 90 consecutive calendar days and is not scheduled for future
services. The exit date is defined as the last date of service. For TAA
participants, the exit date may be the training completion date, but if
additional services are provided after training is completed, or if the
participant is continuing to receive TRA, he or she would not be exited
from the program. Some services are not significant enough to delay
exiting, however. These include receiving UI benefits, some case
management services, and postplacement follow-up.[Footnote 10]
Flow of Data for Collecting and Reporting TAA Data:
The process of collecting and reporting TAA performance data involves
all three levels of government. Participant forms and case files are
generally collected and organized by frontline staff in local areas,
usually at the one-stop. In some states, local staff may enter some of
the information into an IT system that is either integrated with the
state's IT system or able to create an electronic file to transmit to
the state. In other states, paper case files are physically transferred
to state officials for data entry.
At the state level, TAA data are often maintained in more than one IT
system. For example, benefit payment information is usually in the same
IT system that houses Unemployment Insurance payment information.
However, information on participant characteristics and services
(including status of training and whether or not the individual has
exited) resides in one or more other systems. In some states, this
participant information remains as a paper case file until it is
determined that the participant has exited, and it is time to include
him or her in the TAPR submission.
To compile the TAPR submission, state agencies administering TAA
typically match participant records to their state's UI wage record
system to determine whether these former participants are employed and,
if so, the wages they are earning. In some states, staff must manually
enter information obtained from the UI wage record system into the TAPR
file, while other states have IT systems capable of automatically
matching UI data with participants' records. States may also use the
Wage Record Interchange System (WRIS) to match participant records to
other states' UI wage records for participants who found jobs in other
states. Some states may link participant records to other partner
programs' IT systems to track activities across programs or to
determine if the participant has exited all programs. Once Labor
receives the TAPR data, officials perform edit checks and calculate
performance levels at the national and state level.
TAA Data Do Not Provide a Complete, Credible Picture of the Program's
Performance:
TAA performance data are incomplete and may be inaccurate. States
report that they are not including all TAA participants in their TAPR
performance data, despite Labor's requirement that all participants be
included after they exit the program. In addition, some states may not
have documentation to verify the accuracy of participants' exit dates
in TAPR and are not using all available data sources to determine TAA
participants' employment outcomes. Furthermore, 1 state in 5 is using
manual rather than automated processes to compile TAPR data, and others
have IT systems with limited capacity to control for errors. Having
such IT systems could hinder states' ability to ensure that the data
are complete and accurate. However, many states are planning to make
improvements to their TAA IT systems' capabilities this year. Some
state TAA officials said that resource constraints have made it
difficult to ensure their data are complete and accurate.
TAA Performance Data Are Incomplete and May Be Inaccurate:
Many states are not including all exiting participants in the TAPR
submissions that Labor uses to calculate performance outcomes for TAA
participants, such as the reemployment and retention rates.
Participants who received training were most likely to be included in
states' TAPR data, but those who had training waivers and had not
received training were least likely to be included. Only 23 of the 46
states we surveyed reported that they are including in their TAPR
submissions to Labor all exiting participants, regardless of the type
of benefit or service they received. Fourteen states reported that
participants who received waivers but did not receive training were
unlikely to be included in the TAPR (see fig. 1), and 3 states reported
that they do not include any participants unless they receive training.
This finding is consistent with a review by Pennsylvania's state
auditor that found that participants who received waivers from training
were not included in their TAPR submissions.[Footnote 11]
Figure 1: Participants Who Received Training Are Most Likely to Be
Reported in States' TAPR Submissions:
[See PDF for image]
Note: States that did not respond or that responded "uncertain" to the
specific survey questions analyzed for the figure were not included in
the analysis.
[End of figure]
Our review of the TAPR data states submitted to Labor during fiscal
year 2005 confirms our survey results--some states appear to be
excluding some of their participants in their TAPR data files. For
example, 9 states only included in their TAPR submissions participants
who received training. Another 12 states had TAPR submissions composed
almost exclusively (97 to 99 percent) of participants who received
training (see table 2). However, several states did include relatively
more of the participants who had not received training. For example,
for 6 states, under 60 percent of the participants reported in the TAPR
had received training. We have no other reliable source of data to help
us assess what proportion of participants nationwide actually receive
training and, therefore, what the proportion in the TAPR should be. In
a recent study that examined services and outcomes for five trade-
related layoffs, however, we found that between 9 and 39 percent of
potentially eligible TAA participants enrolled in training.[Footnote
12] Excluding certain participants from the TAPR could skew the TAA
performance outcomes calculated by Labor because the outcomes may be
disproportionately based on participants who received TAA-funded
training.
Table 2: Percentage of Participants Included in States' TAPR
Submissions Who Received Training:
Number of states: 9;
Percentage of participants included in TAPR: Received other benefits or
services but no training: None;
Percentage of participants included in TAPR: Received training: 100.
Number of states: 12;
Percentage of participants included in TAPR: Received other benefits or
services but no training: 0.1--3;
Percentage of participants included in TAPR: Received training: 97--
99.9.
Number of states: 11;
Percentage of participants included in TAPR: Received other benefits or
services but no training: 4--20;
Percentage of participants included in TAPR: Received training: 80--96.
Number of states: 8;
Percentage of participants included in TAPR: Received other benefits or
services but no training: 21--40;
Percentage of participants included in TAPR: Received training: 60--79.
Number of states: 6;
Percentage of participants included in TAPR: Received other benefits or
services but no training: Over 40;
Percentage of participants included in TAPR: Received training: Under
60.
Source: GAO analysis of TAPR data submitted to Labor during fiscal year
2005.
[End of table]
Labor does not have a process in place to ensure that states are
including in their TAPR submissions all exiting TAA participants.
Labor's regional offices may review whether states' TAPR submissions
are complete during their state monitoring visits. However, because
Labor has not had a standard monitoring tool, there has been no
assurance that the regional offices were consistently reviewing whether
all exiting participants are reported in states' TAPR data. Labor
officials tell us that they are currently developing a core monitoring
guide, but it is not clear if the guide will address this issue.
Despite the importance of accurately identifying exiters, the exit
dates themselves may not be accurate because some states do not
consistently obtain proper documentation to verify the dates. Accurate
exit dates are critical to TAA performance data for two reasons. First,
a participant's exit date determines if the individual should be
included in the state's TAPR submission to Labor. Second, the timing of
the date of exit determines when a participant's employment outcomes
will be assessed. Labor's guidance requires that states have
documentation for participants' exit dates but does not specify the
type of information that needs to be included in the documentation. For
example, for participants who received training, it does not specify
that the documentation should demonstrate that training was actually
completed. Such documentation could include certificates of training
completion, attendance records, or reports from training providers.
TAA officials in 4 of the 5 states we visited said they had a process
for obtaining documentation to show that participants completed
training, but it is not clear whether such processes are uniformly
followed by states. Officials in 3 states said that they receive
training certifications, either from participants or from trainers,
that show that training was completed. In another state, a TAA official
said that the state sends participants a follow-up survey after
training to verify that the training was completed, but some
participants do not return the survey. Officials in 1 of the 5 states
we visited said they did not have a process for certifying or
documenting that participants completed training.
A recent review in 4 other states by Labor's Office of Inspector
General (OIG) confirmed that states do not have effective processes for
verifying exit dates.[Footnote 13] In its review of 150 TAA case files,
the OIG found that there was no documentation in any of the reviewed
files to verify that the participants had completed the program on the
recorded date of exit. OIG reported that states often recorded an
anticipated date of exit when participants first entered the program,
but did not collect any further documentation to confirm that
participants had completed the training, and if so, whether they had
completed training on the originally recorded date. The OIG recommended
that Labor ensure that states collect and record TAA participants'
actual date of exit, maintain the source documentation for such exit
dates, and make the documentation readily available for review.
According to an OIG official, Labor had not implemented these
recommendations as of January 2006.
Some States Are Not Using All Available Data Sources to Determine
Employment Outcomes for TAA Participants:
Some states are not using all available data sources to determine TAA
participants' employment outcomes. Labor requires states to use UI wage
records to determine the employment outcomes of participants reported
in the TAPR. However, each state's wage record database includes only
wage data on workers within the state and does not have data on
participants who found employment in another state.
To help track employment outcomes of TAA participants across state
lines, states can obtain their employment and earnings information
using other methods. Labor encourages states to use WRIS, a data
clearinghouse that makes UI wage records available to participating
states seeking information on TAA participants who may have found
employment outside their state.[Footnote 14] Thirty-four of the 46
states we surveyed reported that they routinely use WRIS to obtain
employment outcome data on former TAA participants (see fig. 2). Three
states reported that they do not use WRIS but instead routinely use
interstate agreements with individual states to obtain employment
outcome data. Opting to use interstate agreements with individual
states instead of using WRIS is likely to result in access to fewer
states' UI wage records than states would have if they used WRIS and
may result in lower reported outcomes. Seven states use only their own
states' UI wage records to determine participants' employment outcomes.
State TAA officials cited several reasons for not using WRIS, including
that it took too long to receive the needed information and it was not
a priority for the state. Six states that do not currently use WRIS
said that they plan to begin using this system in the future.
Figure 2: Many States Are Using WRIS:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Nearly half of the 46 states are not routinely using other supplemental
information sources even though it may be the only way to collect
outcome information for certain participants. UI wage records, which
cover about 94 percent of workers, do not include some categories of
workers, such as self-employed persons, most independent contractors,
military personnel, federal government workers, and postal workers. To
document the employment status of these workers in the TAPR, states can
use supplemental data, such as pay stubs and follow-up surveys sent to
participants after they leave the program. Using supplemental data is
likely to provide a more complete picture of participant outcomes
because it helps states avoid inaccurately recording participants as
unemployed in the TAPR. In an earlier report on WIA performance data,
23 of the 50 states told us they needed to use supplemental data in
order to meet their expected performance levels for the reemployment
measure under WIA.[Footnote 15]
Twenty-two states reported that they rarely if ever collect
supplemental data to obtain outcome information on TAA participants
(see fig. 3). State TAA officials said that they did not collect
supplemental data because:
* states' TAA IT systems lacked the capacity to record supplemental
data;
* they judged data collected through UI wage records and WRIS as
sufficient, or collecting supplemental data was not required; and:
* they lacked sufficient resources.
Figure 3: Many States Are Not Using Supplemental Data:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Some States' TAA IT Systems Have Limited Capacity to Help Ensure Data
Quality:
Some states reported IT system limitations that could hinder the
states' ability to ensure their TAA data are complete and accurate.
Use of manual processes for compiling data. Nine states reported that
they compile their TAPR report manually by entering data from various
sources into a spreadsheet or other database. For example, 1 state
reported that its TAPR submission was compiled every quarter by culling
data from the actual case files housed in a state official's office. Of
the 9 states that reported compiling their TAPR manually, 4 keypunch
their UI data on employment outcomes into their TAPR data rather than
electronically transferring the data from the UI wage record file.
Using manual rather than automated processes increases the opportunity
for errors to be introduced into the data through data entry. Six
states responding to our survey expressed concern that errors in data
entry may be one of the main causes of incomplete or inaccurate TAA
data.
One state's process for manually compiling the TAPR illustrates
opportunities to introduce errors into the data. In this state, staff
at the state level enter data on TAA participants' training contracts
into a contract database. To compile the TAPR, they identify
participants in the contract database whose training was scheduled to
be completed during the quarter covered by the TAPR, and they enter
data on those participants into a new spreadsheet. To identify
employment outcomes for the TAPR, the staff look up the exiting TAA
participants on printouts from the state's UI wage record system and
manually enter data on the participants' employment status and wages
into the spreadsheet. The data from the spreadsheet are then converted
into the TAPR reporting format and sent to Labor.
Limited IT system capabilities. Many states' IT systems for compiling
TAA data do not have certain IT system capabilities, such as performing
edit checks, that help a state report complete and accurate data to
Labor. Only 15 of the 46 states we surveyed had TAA IT systems with
each of three such capabilities:
* Performing edit checks to prevent data errors: Edit checks aid in
identifying invalid data, such as an entry in a date field that is not
a date.
* Identifying dates TAA participants completed WIA-funded services: The
ability to identify when TAA participants complete WIA-funded services
can help ensure that TAA participants are not counted in the TAPR
report while they are still receiving services under WIA. If
participants are still receiving services, then it is too soon to
assess their employment outcomes in the TAPR report.
* Allowing staff to query the system to assess data reliability and
completeness: Queries allow staff to pull certain information out of
the system to answer questions, and without this capability, staff may
not be able to properly assess data quality and diagnose data problems.
For example, in one local area we visited, a TAA specialist who is
responsible for reporting on numerous TAA participants described having
great difficulty determining if training completion dates had been
entered for participants as appropriate because the specialist could
not query the system to get a list of participants and their training
status.
More than half of the states told us they had plans to make at least
one of these system improvements during the next year. For example, 17
states reported plans to improve their TAA IT systems' capability to
perform edit checks (see fig. 4).
Figure 4: Number of States with TAA IT Systems That Currently Have or
Will Be Adding Certain Capabilities:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Some states with electronic systems may have the capability to track
TAA participants across other programs serving them, but several do
not. Out of the 37 states that told us they had electronic systems to
compile their TAPR data, 29 states said this same system captures
program information for WIA programs, and similarly, 29 said the system
captures information for Employment Services. Thirteen states said that
these capabilities extended to all six programs and benefits that we
examined, which includes, in addition to WIA and ES, Trade Readjustment
Allowance, National Emergency Grants, Veterans Employment and Training
Program, and UI. See appendix II for a complete listing of states'
systems linkages.
In addition, several states commented on our survey that they have
planned enhancements to their TAA IT systems that may help coordinate
across programs and increase the likelihood of capturing more outcomes:
* Improving coordination of data across programs: Six states reported
planning changes, such as developing a single case management system
for several programs that would allow more coordination of data across
programs.
* Transitioning from manual to electronic processes: Two states that
have been using manual processes reported plans to develop electronic
interfaces to capture needed data for the TAPR.
* Adding capacity to record supplemental data: Two states reported that
their IT system changes will enable them to begin recording
supplemental data for use in determining TAA participants' employment
outcomes.
Some States Told Us Limited Resources Contributed to TAA Performance
Data Problems:
Some states reported that limited TAA administrative funds hindered
their ability to ensure the quality of the TAA performance data they
collect and maintain. To cover their TAA program's administrative
costs, states receive an allocation each year equal to 15 percent of
their TAA training allocation. In fiscal year 2006, 9 states received
less than $100,000 in TAA administrative funds, and another 10 states
received between $100,000 and $300,000. These funds are used to cover
all the administrative activities of the program, such as reviewing
waivers and training plans, processing applications for job search or
relocation allowances, and any associated data collection and
reporting. Some states also use these funds for direct case management
services to participants because they are the only TAA funds available
to provide these services. However, we recently reported that state
officials told us the TAA administrative funds were often insufficient
to meet the case management needs of the program and they relied on
other programs to provide those services.[Footnote 16] (For a complete
listing of each state's TAA training and administrative funds, see app.
III.)
State and local TAA officials said that resource shortages contribute
to difficulties in identifying exit dates, using supplemental data
sources, and entering data in a timely manner. For example, one state
official commented on our survey that TAA case managers often do not
have enough time to follow up with participants to learn about their
status after they have been sent to training. Another state official
said that insufficient case management can delay the identification of
participants exiting the program. Officials in 2 other states told us
that supplemental data were too time-consuming and burdensome to
collect, given the program's current funding levels. Officials said
that resource limitations also presented challenges in entering the
data in a timely manner. An official in one local area we visited
reported a tremendous backlog in entering TAA participant data into the
IT system because there were just two staff to handle approximately
1,000 TAA cases. Similarly, in another local area, the office manager
told us that TAA staff were spread too thinly, a condition that
adversely affected the collection and entry of TAA data.
Labor Makes Some TAA Performance Data Available, but Its Usefulness Is
Limited:
Labor reports data on TAA petition and certification activity, program
participation, and key performance measures, but this information may
not be useful for gauging current program performance. The information
may be helpful in providing a long-term national picture of program
outcomes, but it represents past, rather than current, performance. UI
wage records--the primary data source for tracking TAA performance--
provide a fairly consistent national view of TAA performance and allow
for tracking outcomes over time. At the same time, the UI wage records
suffer from time delays and, together with the use of longer-term
outcome measures, affect the timing of states' performance reports to
Labor and, subsequently, the information that Labor makes publicly
available. Most of the outcome data reported in a given program year
actually reflect participants who left the program up to 2 years
earlier. In addition, Labor does not consistently report TAA data by
state or industry or by services or benefits received--a step that
would make the data more useful to policymakers. States responding to
our survey reported that they would like additional information from
Labor, such as how their TAA performance compares to the performance of
other states and other federal employment and training programs.
Publicly Available TAA Data Do Not Provide a Clear Picture of Current
Program Performance:
Labor makes some TAA statistics available through postings on its Web
site and through published reports, but they do not provide useful
information on current performance.[Footnote 17] Labor provides some
TAA activity and participant data by fiscal year including:
* number of petitions received, certifications issued, and denials by
state;
* distribution of certifications by industry;
* number of new participants receiving extended income support payments
or training; and:
* summary statistics on former TAA participants (such as race,
education level, and benefits and services received).
In addition to reporting on TAA activity and participant data, Labor
also reports on three key TAA performance measures. The TAPR data
submitted by states are used to calculate national and state outcomes
on the TAA performance measures--wage replacement, reemployment, and
retention--for each fiscal year. In 2005, Labor made state-by-state TAA
outcome information publicly available for the first time. According to
Labor officials, making this information public represents an effort to
emphasize performance, and they intend to post state-by-state outcome
information on the Web site for all future fiscal years. Labor's
regional offices directly provide states with information on their TAA
performance relative to the program's national goals. Some regional
offices also provide states with reports showing the performance of all
states in the region, according to officials we interviewed.
However, the information Labor makes publicly available may not provide
a clear picture of current TAA performance because, in addition to
being incomplete and perhaps inaccurate, the data represent past
performance and are not consistently reported by type of service,
state, or industry.
Data represent past performance. Because TAA performance is measured
using UI wage records and long-term performance measures such as
employment retention, the most up-to-date TAA performance data
currently available may represent performance from several years in the
past.
Use of wage records: Using UI wage records to measure outcomes provides
a common yardstick for making long-term comparisons across states
because they contain wage and employment information on most workers.
At the same time, these files suffer delays between the time an
individual gets a job and when this information appears in wage
records. State procedures for collecting and compiling wage information
from employers can be slow and time-consuming. Data are collected from
employers only once every quarter, and employers in most states have 30
days after the quarter ends to report the data to the state. For
example, the wage report for the last calendar quarter of the year
(ending on December 31) is due to the state on January 31. We
previously reported that for the majority of states, the delay between
the time an individual gets a job and the time this information appears
in wage records is up to 4 months.[Footnote 18]
Design of measures: In addition to using a job placement measure, Labor
also uses two longer-term measures to gauge TAA performance--an
earnings measure and a job retention measure. These measures may be
useful for assessing how well the program is meeting its long-range
goals to increase the employment, retention, and earnings of
participants. However, the use of these measures requires states to
wait from one to three quarters after participants exit the TAA program
before measuring the outcomes. For example, although states record
whether participants entered employment in the first quarter after
exit, two more quarters must elapse before employment retention is
measured. Participants who exit the TAA program have their outcomes
assessed in the first, second, and third quarters after exit. However,
data to measure all outcomes are not available until the fifth quarter
after exit, and the outcomes are not submitted to Labor until midway
through the sixth quarter. Figure 5 illustrates the time it takes
before a TAA participant would be included in performance outcome
calculations.
Figure 5: Period between When a TAA Participant Exits the Program and
When Data Are Reported to Labor:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The outcome measures shown in this figure are those used prior to
implementation of common measures in fiscal year 2006. Under common
measures, retention is measured in both the second and third quarters
after exit.
[End of figure]
Labor posts TAA performance data on its Web site on an annual basis,
and because of the time required to collect outcome data on exiters,
the performance data that Labor makes available each year include
workers who exited the program up to 30 months earlier. For example,
states were required to submit performance data to Labor on individuals
who exited the program in the July-to-September quarter of 2002 by
February 15, 2004. However, these data were not publicly released until
early 2005, when they were included in the annual data report covering
those who exited the program between July 2002 and June 2003 (see fig.
6). Furthermore, individuals who exited the TAA program in July 2002
and who received training could have entered the program 2 years
earlier, or July 2000--4½ years before their outcome data were included
in the annual reporting of outcomes.
Figure 6: Fiscal Year 2004 TAA Performance Data Represent Exiters from
as early as Fiscal Year 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Categories used to display outcome data are not sufficiently
informative. The categories Labor uses to report program outcomes are
unlikely to provide policymakers a broad understanding of different
aspects of the program's performance. Labor combines all participants
in the publicly available outcome information, regardless of the types
of services and benefits they received. As a result, there is no
information available to the public on how the outcomes of participants
who received TAA-funded training differ from those of participants who
received other benefits or services, such as job search assistance or
extended income support. In addition, Labor does not consistently
report TAA participant and activity data by state or by industry. This
makes it difficult for policymakers to accurately assess program
activities and performance and determine future needs.
Examining data by different categories may also allow Labor to
recognize and address problems related to performance and data quality.
We and other experts have found that reporting performance information
in smaller, meaningful categories can help identify and resolve
problems. For example, comparing the performance of states on different
TAA measures may draw attention to low-performing states. Furthermore,
careful analysis of disaggregated data could uncover data quality
issues. For example, if Labor analyzed each state's data by the
different benefits and services TAA participants received, then it may
be able to identify those states that are excluding some exiting
participants in their TAPR submissions by looking at which states
reported few or no participants in certain categories.
Ongoing study will assess program impact. Labor has funded a long-term
study to assess the impact of TAA program services such as training on
participants' employment and earnings that will provide policymakers a
broader understanding of the program's effectiveness. The goal of the
study is to determine not only the outcomes achieved by TAA
participants, but also the impact of TAA program services--that is,
whether participants had better outcomes as a result of the program
than they would have if they had not received program services. Labor
last completed an evaluation of the TAA program in 1993, but
methodological issues resulted in inconclusive findings from that
study. According to Labor officials, the methodology used by the new
study is an improvement over the methodology used by the 1993 study and
should provide more conclusive findings. The new study will compare the
outcomes for a treatment group (TAA participants in 25 states) and a
comparison group (UI claimants in the 25 states who are similar to the
TAA participants in a number of observable characteristics). It will
examine, for example, the workers' job search methods, their training
outcomes, and their employment history before and after being laid off.
This methodology will likely allow an assessment of the impact of the
TAA program, rather than just outcomes. Data collection began in 2005
and will continue until 2008, and a final report is scheduled to be
issued by the end of 2008.
Most States Find TAA Performance Data Useful, but Many Would Like
Additional Information:
While approximately one-third of the states found TAA performance
information they currently receive from Labor to be greatly useful,
some would like Labor to provide them with additional information to
help manage their program. Nearly half of the 46 states we surveyed
told us that they find the performance information they receive from
Labor to be moderately useful (see fig. 7), and 8 states reported that
Labor's TAA performance information is of little or no use for program
management.
Figure 7: Many States Found Labor's Performance Information to Be
Moderately Useful:
[See PDF for image]
Note: One state responded "uncertain" and was not included in this
figure.
[End of figure]
Nearly half of the states we surveyed told us that they routinely
develop information on their own performance beyond what they submit to
Labor. For example, an official in 1 state reported that it calculates
its own outcomes before receiving them from Labor in order to make
managers and executives aware of the state's performance, and it uses
this information to engage state and local TAA staff in making program
adjustments. In addition, approximately one-third of the states
routinely develop information on their local areas' performance. Labor
does not provide analysis of local area performance to states because
it does not collect this type of information in the TAPR.
While many states provide the performance information of their own
state and that of other states to their local area TAA staff, few
states provide information on their local areas' performance to local
TAA staff. Only 27 of the 46 states in our survey reported that they
share information from Labor with local area staff on how their state's
performance compares to national TAA performance goals. In addition,
only 7 of the 16 states that generate additional performance
information for local areas reported that they share this information
with local TAA staff. One expert we spoke with told us that regularly
sharing performance information with local program staff enables them
to understand how the data they collect are being used and the
importance of complete and accurate data for producing reliable
performance information. Our recent report on performance measurement
also noted that frequent and routine communication of performance
information helps program staff and stakeholders use such information
to accomplish program goals as they pursue day-to-day
activities.[Footnote 19] These practices could lead to better program
management and produce more reliable performance data to assess TAA
performance in the future.
States said that they would like to receive additional performance
information from Labor to help manage their TAA program. Thirty-four
states would like more information than they currently receive on their
own state's performance, and 39 states reported they would like
information comparing their states' TAA performance to their WIA
Dislocated Worker performance (see fig. 8).[Footnote 20] According to
one state official we spoke with, receiving additional TAA performance
information that is displayed by type of service and by state would
enable officials to respond more effectively to performance problems
and to learn what strategies states with similar TAA populations are
using to achieve different performance outcomes.
Figure 8: Most States Reported That Additional Performance Information
from Labor Would Be Useful for Program Management:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Labor Has Taken Steps to Improve the Quality of Performance Data, but
Issues Remain:
While it has limited authority to hold states accountable, Labor has
taken steps to improve the quality of TAA data states submit, but these
steps do not fully address all issues. Labor has no mechanism to
sanction states for poor performance or poor-quality data because the
law and current regulations do not provide one. However, Labor has
begun an initiative that requires states to review a sample of their
data for accuracy. It is too soon to fully assess whether Labor's
efforts have improved data quality, but most states reported on our
survey that Labor's new requirements have increased awareness of data
quality at the state and local levels. States also report that they
would like more opportunities to share lessons learned about issues
related to data quality. Labor is requiring changes in some TAA
performance measures to align them with measures for other federally
funded job training programs. Many states reported that the changes are
burdensome, and some states are experiencing delays in implementing the
changes.
Data Validation Is Having Positive Effects but Does Not Address All
Concerns:
To address data quality concerns, Labor developed a process for states
to use to validate the TAPR data they submitted to Labor. Starting with
data submitted in fiscal year 2003, Labor required states to review a
sample of participants' records and compare what was reported for
certain data elements to data in source files. State staff review the
source files and record whether each data element is supported by
source documentation and, therefore, passed data validation. If the
source files show a data element was incorrect or was not supported
with documentation, the data element fails. States use Labor's software
to calculate error rates, and they submit the results to Labor.
While it is too soon to assess whether Labor's data validation efforts
have improved data quality, many states said that the efforts are
having a positive effect. Thirty-five states reported that efforts have
improved the accuracy of the data. Thirty-seven of the 46 states told
us they have helped increase the awareness of data quality at the state
level, and 25 states told us they have improved awareness at the local
level (see fig. 9).
Figure 9: States' View of How Labor's Data Validation Efforts Have
Helped Them:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Until recently, Labor has not had a standard process for ensuring that
states performed data validation correctly. Labor officials tell us,
however, that beginning in 2006, regional offices are conducting data
validation compliance reviews of a subsample of validated records to
ensure that the records were accurately validated and the files
contained all required source documents.
While states report that Labor's data validation requirements are
having some positive effects, Labor's data validation efforts do not
address two key problems. First, guidance for data validation defined
for the first time the type of source documents needed to validate TAPR
data elements, including exit dates. However, the guidance does not
specify that the source documents for training completion dates should
show that participants actually completed training. Second, data
validation does not provide for assessing whether TAPR submissions are
complete. Because the data validation process only covers participant
records included in states' TAPR submissions for the year, it does not
look beyond those records to determine whether all exiting participants
were included.
Labor Has Taken Several Other Steps to Help Improve TAA Data, but
States Want More Opportunities to Share Lessons Learned:
In addition to implementing data validation, Labor has taken various
actions to better instruct states and to provide tools for improving
the data they submit to Labor.
Technical assistance and training: In 2005 and 2006, Labor brought
together state TAA staff for training conferences on the new data
requirements for implementing common measures. According to Labor
officials, Labor's regional offices periodically hold roundtables with
states to discuss issues that sometimes include data quality. Labor
provides technical assistance, as needed, to states through telephone
calls and e-mails. According to Labor officials, Labor is planning to
start holding quarterly conference calls with states about TAA issues,
including data quality.
Guidance on data reporting: Labor issued guidance and instructions for
TAA data reporting, such as instructions defining how "date of exit" is
to be determined under common measures. In May 2005, Labor issued a
guidance letter to states addressing several issues with data quality,
such as the use of WRIS and supplemental data to determine employment
outcomes. In general, states reported that the guidance and training
they had received from Labor provided a clear understanding of certain
data requirements, such as the requirements for data validation and for
using UI wage records. States were somewhat less likely to say that
Labor had provided a clear understanding of the documentation needed
for the date of exit and how supplemental data could be used to
document TAA employment outcomes.
Monitoring: Labor's regional offices conduct monitoring visits to
review states' TAA programs. In the past, Labor did not have a standard
protocol for these monitoring visits, and the monitoring did not always
cover the quality of the TAA data being submitted by states. However,
as of March 2006, Labor was developing a standard monitoring guide for
its regional staff.
Pilot project on federal employment data: Labor collaborated with the
Office of Personnel Management, the U.S. Postal Service, and the
Department of Defense to create a pilot data exchange system to provide
states access to wage record information on federal and military
employment. The system that began operating in November 2003 can help
states obtain more complete employment outcome data on participants who
exited job training programs because it provides information on federal
employment that is not available in state UI wage records. Many states
are using the system to help determine employment outcomes for job
training programs, such as those funded under the Workforce Investment
Act. However, only 3 of the 46 states we surveyed reported that they
were routinely using this system to obtain employment outcomes for the
TAA program.
Despite Labor's efforts to improve data quality, most states would like
more help. Most states reported that they do not currently have
opportunities to share lessons learned with other states on topics
related to TAA data quality, such as how to use supplemental data, and
they expressed interest in having such opportunities. For example, 29
states told us they do not currently have opportunities to share
lessons learned on data validation, and 44 states told us more
opportunities to do so would be helpful (see fig. 10).
Figure 10: Most State Expressed Interest in Having More Opportunities
to Share Lessons Learned on Data Issues:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Labor's Common Measures May Address Some Concerns, but States Are Still
Struggling to Implement Changes:
In response to an OMB initiative, Labor made changes to some of the TAA
performance measures and to TAA reporting requirements in order to
implement common measures (see table 3). OMB established a set of
common performance measures to be applied to most federally funded job
training programs that share similar goals. Labor further defined the
common measures for all of its Employment and Training Administration
programs and required states to start reporting TAA data under the
revised requirements in fiscal year 2006.
Table 3: How TAA Performance Measures Changed under Common Measures:
Past measure: Wage replacement: earnings in the second and third
quarters after exit divided by earnings in the second and third
quarters prior to dislocation;
Common measure: Average earnings: total earnings in the second and
third quarters after exit divided by the number of exiting
participants.
Past measure: Reemployment rate: percentage of program exiters employed
in first quarter after exit;
Common measure: Entered employment rate: same as the past reemployment
rate measure.
Past measure: Retention rate: percentage of exiters employed in the
first quarter after exit that are still employed in third quarter after
exit;
Common measure: Retention rate: percentage of exiters employed in the
first quarter after exit that are still employed in both the second and
third quarters after exit.
Source: Department of Labor guidance.
[End of table]
Moving to common measures may increase the comparability of outcome
information across programs and make it easier for states and local
areas to collect and report performance information across the full
range of programs that provide services in a one-stop system. Prior to
common measures, many federal job training programs had performance
measures that tracked similar outcomes but had variation in the terms
used and the way the measures were calculated. For example, the
programs used different time periods to assess whether participants got
jobs. Under common measures, the time period used to assess employment
outcomes is uniform across all covered programs.
Implementation of common measures involved some changes in the data
states collect for the TAPR:
Standardized exit definitions: Labor's guidance on common measures
provides for a clearer understanding of when TAA participants should be
exited from the program than did earlier TAA guidance. Under Labor's
guidance, states must wait 90 days after participants receive their
last service or benefit--from TAA, WIA, or other related programs--to
record them as exiters. Prior to this change, states could exit
participants without waiting 90 days. Most states reported that the
guidance and training they received from Labor provided a clear
understanding of the definition of exit under common measures, but 7
states disagreed.
Coordination of exit dates: Under common measures, states are
encouraged to establish a common exit date for each participant who is
co-enrolled in more than one program. For example, if a participant
receives services under TAA and under WIA, then the two programs should
use the same exit date for the participant. Coordinating exit dates
improves data quality by avoiding the problem of counting a participant
as unemployed in the program's performance measures when, in fact, the
participant is still receiving services in another program and is not
ready to be counted in the performance measures.
Changes in IT systems: A number of data fields were added or changed in
the TAPR as part of the new common measures policy, requiring states to
add or change data fields in their IT systems and to instruct staff on
changes in data to be collected on participants and employment
outcomes. Most states reported that the guidance and training they
received from Labor provided a clear understanding of the changes
needed in the TAPR to implement common measures; however, 7 states
disagreed.
Although moving to common measures may ultimately make it easier for
states to collect and report performance information across programs,
most states reported that making changes to implement common measures
had been a burden in terms of time and cost (see fig. 11), and often
viewed coordinating exit dates as burdensome. States were nearly evenly
divided in their views, however, on whether they had been given
sufficient time by Labor to complete the changes. Nineteen states said
they had not been given sufficient time, while 18 states said they had.
Twenty-six states reported that they will have provided guidance to
staff or changed data elements in their IT systems by the time the
first quarterly TAPR is due in fiscal year 2006 (see fig. 12). Other
states reported that they would have these changes completed sometime
later in 2006, while some states said they could not estimate when they
will complete the changes. Coordinating exit dates was the change that
states considered the most burdensome. Seventeen states were unable to
estimate when they would be able to coordinate exit dates across
programs.
Figure 11: Most States Viewed Changes Needed for Common Measures to Be
a Burden:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 12: Coordinating Exit Dates Was Change States Were Least Likely
to Expect to Have Completed in 2006:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In a previous study, we cautioned that rushed implementation of
reporting changes may not allow states and local areas enough time to
fully meet the requirements and could negatively affect the data
quality of the information reported.[Footnote 21]
Conclusions:
Since the passage of the TAA Reform Act of 2002, the TAA program has
evolved to become one of the most important means to help the workers
affected by our nation's trade policies rejoin our nation's workforce.
The program has seen substantial increases in the population it serves
and in the funds available to serve them. Unfortunately, efforts to
monitor the program's performance have not kept pace with the program's
development. Four years after the passage of the reforms, we still do
not know whether the program is achieving what lawmakers intended.
The TAA program has suffered a history of problems with its performance
data that have undermined the data's credibility and limited their
usefulness. And while we see that Labor has taken some steps aimed at
improving the performance data, the data remain suspect. They fail to
capture outcomes for some of the program's participants, and many
participants are not included in the final outcomes at all. These
failures may have contributed to the program's poor performance in
achieving its national goals. Labor lacks the authority to hold states
accountable for their outcomes or for the quality of their data, and as
a result, some states may not see the value of investing more effort to
ensure their data are complete and accurate. In truth, officials tell
us the funding to support their efforts is small, and it fluctuates
from year to year, making such an investment difficult to sustain. But
the success of the program is being judged by the outcomes the program
achieves and whether or not it meets its goals. The current budgetary
environment makes it risky not to take all necessary steps to ensure
that the outcomes are an accurate and credible reflection of the
program's performance.
Labor has taken a major step toward improving the quality of its
performance data through its new data validation requirements. States
report that these requirements have significantly raised the awareness
of data quality at the state and local levels-an essential component in
any effort to improve the accuracy of the data. But these efforts do
not fully address all issues. No steps have been taken to ensure that
all participants are included in the TAA performance data or that exit
dates are adequately documented. Monitoring can help address data
issues, but Labor is just now developing a standard monitoring guide
that would help ensure that key problems are identified during
monitoring visits. Until these steps are complete, the data can not be
verified and may remain incomplete. Providing opportunities for states
to share lessons learned may make states more aware of effective
approaches for ensuring data quality, and several states expressed an
interest in more such opportunities.
Labor has recently improved the availability of TAA performance
information by posting the information on its Web site and by making
some state-by-state performance data available. However, the
performance data are not as informative as they could be because they
aggregate all participants and do not show the outcomes of participants
based on the types of services they received. As a result, policymakers
lack the information they need to understand program participation and
performance and to assess future needs.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
While Labor has taken steps to share information with states and to
improve data quality, more work is needed.
To help ensure that TAA participant data reported by states are
consistent, complete, and accurate, Labor should:
* clarify through guidance and other communications with states:
* that all participants who exit the program should be included in the
TAPR and:
* the documentation needed to verify the training completion date;
* ensure that the core monitoring guide currently under development for
regional office site visits includes guidance for assessing whether
states' data collection processes for performance reporting capture all
participants; and:
* provide states with opportunities to share lessons learned with other
states on issues that may affect data quality.
To make TAA performance information more useful for program management,
Labor should provide this information by the type of services received
by TAA participants.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to Labor for review and comment. In
its comments, Labor did not disagree with our findings and
recommendations and said the report will be helpful in its continuing
efforts to improve the quality of TAA performance data. Labor noted
that the issues raised in the report about administrative costs and the
burden of new reporting requirements are compounded by having a
workforce investment system that is duplicative in its service delivery
design, resulting in separate record-keeping and reporting systems.
Labor also identified a number of actions that it is taking to ensure
that performance accountability is an expectation of the program. A
copy of Labor's response is in appendix IV.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of
this report until 30 days from the date of this report. At that time,
we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, relevant
congressional committees, and others who are interested. Copies will
also be made available to others upon request. The report is also
available on GAO's home page at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or members of your staff have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We examined (1) whether the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
performance data provide a credible picture of the program's
performance, (2) what TAA performance data Labor makes available to the
public and states and the usefulness of the data for managing the
program, and (3) what Labor is doing to address issues with the quality
of TAA data submitted by states.
To learn more about the factors that affect TAA data quality and to
learn what states are doing to ensure data quality, we conducted a Web-
based survey of state TAA officials and conducted site visits in five
states, where we interviewed state officials and visited local areas or
one-stop centers. We also collected information on the quality of TAA
data through interviews with Department of Labor officials in
headquarters and all six regional offices, nationally recognized
experts, and reviewed relevant literature. Our work was conducted
between December 2004 and March 2006 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
To determine the factors that affect the quality of TAA performance
data, we conducted a Web-based survey of workforce officials in the 46
states[Footnote 22] that were allocated TAA funds in fiscal year 2005,
and we obtained a 100 percent response rate. These officials were
identified using Labor's list of state TAA officials. We e-mailed the
contacts, and they confirmed that they were the appropriate contact for
our survey or identified and referred us to another person at the state
level. Survey topics included (1) the current status of TAA data
collection and reporting systems, (2) implementation of the U.S.
Department of Labor's data validation requirements, (3) state and local
efforts to ensure the quality of TAA data, and (4) the implementation
of common measures. The survey was conducted using a self-administered
electronic questionnaire posted on the Web. We contacted respondents
via e-mail announcing the survey, and sent follow-up e-mails to
encourage responses. The survey data were collected between November
2005 and January 2006. We received completed surveys from all 46 states
that were allocated TAA funding in fiscal year 2005 (a 100 percent
response rate). We did not include Washington, D.C., and U.S.
territories in our survey.
Web-Based Survey:
We worked to develop the questionnaire with social science survey
specialists. Because this was not a sample survey, there is no sampling
error. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may
introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For
example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted or in
the sources of information that are available to respondents can
introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps
in the development of the questionnaire, the data collection, and data
analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, prior to
administering the survey, we pretested the content and format of the
questionnaire with four states to determine whether (1) the survey
questions were clear, (2) the terms used were precise, (3) respondents
were able to provide the information we were seeking, and (4) the
questions were unbiased. We made changes to the content and format of
the final questionnaire based on pretest results. We also performed
computer analyses to identify inconsistencies in responses and other
indications of error. In addition, a second independent analyst
verified that the computer programs used to analyze the data were
written correctly.
Site Visits:
We visited five states--California, Iowa, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia--
and traveled to local areas or one-stop centers in each of these
states. We selected these states because they represent different TAA
data collection approaches (that is, states where data are entered into
information technology [IT] systems at the local level and those where
data are entered at the state level), received a relatively large share
of TAA funds in fiscal year 2005, and are geographically dispersed.
From within each state, we judgmentally selected local areas to visit
(see table 4). In each state, we interviewed state TAA officials about
their collection and use of TAA data, IT systems used to compile TAA
performance data, and efforts to ensure the data are complete and
accurate. Similarly, we interviewed local area officials about their
collection and use of TAA data.
Information that we gathered on our site visits represents only the
conditions present in the states and local areas at the time of our
site visits, from January 2005 through October 2005. We cannot comment
on any changes that may have occurred after our fieldwork was
completed. Furthermore, we cannot generalize the findings from our site
visits beyond the states and local areas we visited.
Table 4: Site Visit States and Local Areas:
State: California;
Local area: Alameda County.
Local area: Orange County.
State: Iowa;
Local area: Newton.
Local area: Burlington.
State: Ohio;
Local area: Franklin County.
State: Texas;
Local area: San Antonio.
Local area: Dallas.
State: Virginia;
Local area: Harrisonburg.
Local area: Danville.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Program Information in State TAA IT Systems:
In our survey, states were asked whether the IT system they use to
compile data for the Trade Act Participant Report (TAPR) currently
captures program information for certain other Labor programs or
benefits.
Table 5: Program Information for Other U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration Programs Contained in State IT
Systems Used to Compile TAPR Submissions:
State: Alabama;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): [Empty];
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Alaska;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): [Empty];
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): [Empty];
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: [Empty].
State: Arizona;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): [Empty];
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): [Empty];
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: California;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): [Empty];
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): [Empty];
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Colorado;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Florida;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Georgia;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): [Empty];
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Idaho;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): [Empty];
Employment Services (ES): [Empty];
National Emergency Grant (NEG): [Empty];
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): [Empty];
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Illinois;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): [Empty];
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): [Empty];
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): [Empty];
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: [Empty].
State: Indiana;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): [Empty];
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Iowa;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): [Empty];
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Kansas;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): [Empty];
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Kentucky;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Maine;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): [Empty];
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Maryland;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): [Empty];
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: [Empty].
State: Massachusetts;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Michigan;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): [Empty];
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): [Empty];
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: [Empty].
State: Minnesota;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): [Empty];
Employment Services (ES): [Empty];
National Emergency Grant (NEG): [Empty];
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): [Empty];
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: [Empty].
State: Mississippi;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Missouri;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): [Empty];
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Montana;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): [Empty];
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): [Empty];
Employment Services (ES): [Empty];
National Emergency Grant (NEG): [Empty];
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): [Empty];
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: [Empty].
State: North Carolina;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: New Hampshire;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): [Empty];
Employment Services (ES): [Empty];
National Emergency Grant (NEG): [Empty];
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): [Empty];
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: [Empty].
State: New Jersey;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: [Empty].
State: New York;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Oklahoma;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): [Empty];
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): [Empty];
Employment Services (ES): [Empty];
National Emergency Grant (NEG): [Empty];
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): [Empty];
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Oregon;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): [Empty];
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: South Carolina;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): [Empty];
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): [Empty];
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: [Empty].
State: South Dakota;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: [Empty].
State: Tennessee;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Texas;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Utah;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Vermont;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Virginia;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): [Empty];
Employment Services (ES): [Empty];
National Emergency Grant (NEG): [Empty];
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): [Empty];
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Washington;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: [Empty].
State: West Virginia;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
State: Wisconsin;
Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA): X;
Workforce Investment Act (WIA): X;
Employment Services (ES): X;
National Emergency Grant (NEG): X;
Veterans Employment and Training Program (VETS): X;
Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program: X.
Source: GAO survey of state TAA officials.
Note: Nine states that reported compiling their TAPR manually were
excluded from the table: Arkansas, Connecticut, Louisiana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: State TAA Administrative Allocations, Fiscal Years 2005-
2006:
The TAA Reform Act authorizes up to $220 million per year for training
under the TAA Program. Labor allocates 75 percent of the training funds
to states according to a formula that takes into account each state's
previous year allocations, accrued expenditures, and participant
levels. Labor holds the remaining 25 percent of training funds in
reserve to distribute to states throughout the year according to need.
To cover administrative costs associated with training under the TAA
program, Labor allocates to each state additional administrative funds
equal to 15 percent of its training allocation. Table 6 shows Labor's
initial 75 percent allocation for training and associated
administrative expenses. States also receive an additional 15 percent
of any reserve (25 percent) funding and job search/relocation
allowances for program administration.
Table 6: State TAA Training and Administrative Allocations, Fiscal
Years 2005-2006:
States: Alabama;
2005 allocation: Training: $2,468,374;
2005 allocation: Administration: $370,256;
2006 allocation: Training: $2,642,640;
2006 allocation: Administration: $396,396.
States: Alaska;
2005 allocation: Training: 398,625;
2005 allocation: Administration: 59,794;
2006 allocation: Training: 429,982;
2006 allocation: Administration: 64,497.
States: Arizona;
2005 allocation: Training: 2,358,372;
2005 allocation: Administration: 353,756;
2006 allocation: Training: 2,440,988;
2006 allocation: Administration: 366,148.
States: Arkansas;
2005 allocation: Training: 2,059,660;
2005 allocation: Administration: 308,949;
2006 allocation: Training: 1,750,711;
2006 allocation: Administration: 262,607.
States: California;
2005 allocation: Training: 6,180,645;
2005 allocation: Administration: 927,097;
2006 allocation: Training: 6,642,537;
2006 allocation: Administration: 996,380.
States: Colorado;
2005 allocation: Training: 1,678,693;
2005 allocation: Administration: 251,804;
2006 allocation: Training: 1,426,889;
2006 allocation: Administration: 214,033.
States: Connecticut;
2005 allocation: Training: 1,765,584;
2005 allocation: Administration: 264,838;
2006 allocation: Training: 1,500,746;
2006 allocation: Administration: 225,112.
States: Delaware;
2005 allocation: Training: 0;
2005 allocation: Administration: 0;
2006 allocation: Training: 0;
2006 allocation: Administration: 0.
States: District of Columbia;
2005 allocation: Training: 0;
2005 allocation: Administration: 0;
2006 allocation: Training: 0;
2006 allocation: Administration: 0.
States: Florida;
2005 allocation: Training: 3,941,816;
2005 allocation: Administration: 591,272;
2006 allocation: Training: 3,350,544;
2006 allocation: Administration: 502,582.
States: Georgia;
2005 allocation: Training: 854,284;
2005 allocation: Administration: 128,143;
2006 allocation: Training: 1,559,104;
2006 allocation: Administration: 233,866.
States: Hawaii;
2005 allocation: Training: 0;
2005 allocation: Administration: 0;
2006 allocation: Training: 0;
2006 allocation: Administration: 0.
States: Idaho;
2005 allocation: Training: 2,332,696;
2005 allocation: Administration: 349,904;
2006 allocation: Training: 2,390,380;
2006 allocation: Administration: 358,557.
States: Illinois;
2005 allocation: Training: 4,294,247;
2005 allocation: Administration: 644,137;
2006 allocation: Training: 4,696,350;
2006 allocation: Administration: 704,452.
States: Indiana;
2005 allocation: Training: 4,432,026;
2005 allocation: Administration: 664,804;
2006 allocation: Training: 4,780,198;
2006 allocation: Administration: 717,030.
States: Iowa;
2005 allocation: Training: 3,336,400;
2005 allocation: Administration: 500,460;
2006 allocation: Training: 2,835,940;
2006 allocation: Administration: 425,391.
States: Kansas;
2005 allocation: Training: 3,265,572;
2005 allocation: Administration: 489,836;
2006 allocation: Training: 2,775,736;
2006 allocation: Administration: 416,360.
States: Kentucky;
2005 allocation: Training: 2,998,984;
2005 allocation: Administration: 449,848;
2006 allocation: Training: 3,705,162;
2006 allocation: Administration: 555,774.
States: Louisiana;
2005 allocation: Training: 594,658;
2005 allocation: Administration: 89,199;
2006 allocation: Training: 612,573;
2006 allocation: Administration: 91,886.
States: Maine;
2005 allocation: Training: 3,674,863;
2005 allocation: Administration: 551,229;
2006 allocation: Training: 4,021,621;
2006 allocation: Administration: 603,243.
States: Maryland;
2005 allocation: Training: 482,983;
2005 allocation: Administration: 72,447;
2006 allocation: Training: 525,184;
2006 allocation: Administration: 78,778.
States: Massachusetts;
2005 allocation: Training: 5,473,152;
2005 allocation: Administration: 820,973;
2006 allocation: Training: 5,600,876;
2006 allocation: Administration: 840,131.
States: Michigan;
2005 allocation: Training: 5,559,171;
2005 allocation: Administration: 833,876;
2006 allocation: Training: 5,774,380;
2006 allocation: Administration: 866,157.
States: Minnesota;
2005 allocation: Training: 3,824,119;
2005 allocation: Administration: 573,618;
2006 allocation: Training: 4,005,739;
2006 allocation: Administration: 600,861.
States: Mississippi;
2005 allocation: Training: 1,909,216;
2005 allocation: Administration: 286,382;
2006 allocation: Training: 2,076,016;
2006 allocation: Administration: 311,402.
States: Missouri;
2005 allocation: Training: 4,993,894;
2005 allocation: Administration: 749,084;
2006 allocation: Training: 4,244,810;
2006 allocation: Administration: 636,721.
States: Montana;
2005 allocation: Training: 1,054,844;
2005 allocation: Administration: 158,227;
2006 allocation: Training: 1,109,440;
2006 allocation: Administration: 166,416.
States: Nebraska;
2005 allocation: Training: 469,538;
2005 allocation: Administration: 70,431;
2006 allocation: Training: 480,298;
2006 allocation: Administration: 72,045.
States: Nevada;
2005 allocation: Training: 298,265;
2005 allocation: Administration: 44,740;
2006 allocation: Training: 253,525;
2006 allocation: Administration: 38,029.
States: New Hampshire;
2005 allocation: Training: 600,301;
2005 allocation: Administration: 90,045;
2006 allocation: Training: 510,256;
2006 allocation: Administration: 76,538.
States: New Jersey;
2005 allocation: Training: 1,545,011;
2005 allocation: Administration: 231,752;
2006 allocation: Training: 1,698,502;
2006 allocation: Administration: 254,775.
States: New Mexico;
2005 allocation: Training: 444,554;
2005 allocation: Administration: 66,683;
2006 allocation: Training: 377,871;
2006 allocation: Administration: 56,681.
States: New York;
2005 allocation: Training: 2,496,152;
2005 allocation: Administration: 374,423;
2006 allocation: Training: 2,642,798;
2006 allocation: Administration: 396,420.
States: North Carolina;
2005 allocation: Training: 8,174,834;
2005 allocation: Administration: 1,226,225;
2006 allocation: Training: 9,918,421;
2006 allocation: Administration: 1,487,763.
States: North Dakota;
2005 allocation: Training: 0;
2005 allocation: Administration: 0;
2006 allocation: Training: 0;
2006 allocation: Administration: 0.
States: Ohio;
2005 allocation: Training: 4,226,657;
2005 allocation: Administration: 633,998;
2006 allocation: Training: 4,579,676;
2006 allocation: Administration: 686,951.
States: Oklahoma;
2005 allocation: Training: 1,440,538;
2005 allocation: Administration: 216,081;
2006 allocation: Training: 1,523,960;
2006 allocation: Administration: 228,594.
States: Oregon;
2005 allocation: Training: 5,116,592;
2005 allocation: Administration: 767,489;
2006 allocation: Training: 5,242,514;
2006 allocation: Administration: 786,377.
States: Pennsylvania;
2005 allocation: Training: 17,538,533;
2005 allocation: Administration: 2,630,779;
2006 allocation: Training: 14,907,751;
2006 allocation: Administration: 2,236,165.
States: Rhode Island;
2005 allocation: Training: 690,084;
2005 allocation: Administration: 103,513;
2006 allocation: Training: 734,856;
2006 allocation: Administration: 110,228.
States: South Carolina;
2005 allocation: Training: 5,137,159;
2005 allocation: Administration: 770,574;
2006 allocation: Training: 4,366,585;
2006 allocation: Administration: 654,988.
States: South Dakota;
2005 allocation: Training: 341,148;
2005 allocation: Administration: 51,172;
2006 allocation: Training: 371,610;
2006 allocation: Administration: 55,741.
States: Tennessee;
2005 allocation: Training: 2,464,473;
2005 allocation: Administration: 369,671;
2006 allocation: Training: 2,681,734;
2006 allocation: Administration: 402,260.
States: Texas;
2005 allocation: Training: 10,638,355;
2005 allocation: Administration: 1,595,753;
2006 allocation: Training: 11,149,519;
2006 allocation: Administration: 1,672,428.
States: Utah;
2005 allocation: Training: 2,134,549;
2005 allocation: Administration: 320,182;
2006 allocation: Training: 1,814,367;
2006 allocation: Administration: 272,155.
States: Vermont;
2005 allocation: Training: 287,696;
2005 allocation: Administration: 43,154;
2006 allocation: Training: 296,965;
2006 allocation: Administration: 44,545.
States: Virginia;
2005 allocation: Training: 5,222,843;
2005 allocation: Administration: 783,426;
2006 allocation: Training: 5,712,451;
2006 allocation: Administration: 856,868.
States: Washington;
2005 allocation: Training: 13,920,774;
2005 allocation: Administration: 2,088,116;
2006 allocation: Training: 14,357,300;
2006 allocation: Administration: 2,153,595.
States: West Virginia;
2005 allocation: Training: 770,639;
2005 allocation: Administration: 115,596;
2006 allocation: Training: 1,038,332;
2006 allocation: Administration: 155,750.
States: Wisconsin;
2005 allocation: Training: 11,108,427;
2005 allocation: Administration: 1,666,264;
2006 allocation: Training: 9,442,163;
2006 allocation: Administration: 1,416,324.
States: Wyoming;
2005 allocation: Training: 0;
2005 allocation: Administration: 0;
2006 allocation: Training: 0;
2006 allocation: Administration: 0.
States: Total;
2005 allocation: Training: $165,000,000;
2005 allocation: Administration: $24,750,000;
2006 allocation: Training: $165,000,000;
2006 allocation: Administration: $24,750,000.
Source: Department of Labor.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training:
Washington. D.C. 20210:
Mr. Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director:
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled, "Trade Adjustment
Assistance: Labor Should Take Action to Ensure Performance Data Are
Complete, Accurate, and Accessible" (GAO-06-496). The information in
the report will assist the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in continuing
our efforts to improve the data quality of the Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) program. We offer the information in this response to
outline the actions that have been taken to ensure that performance
accountability is in place and is an expectation of the program.
It is important to note that, as discussed in previous responses to
other recent GAO reports, this report is yet another acknowledgement of
the problems created by having a workforce investment system that is
duplicative in its service delivery design, resulting in separate
recordkeeping and reporting systems. This occurs even though "partner
One-Stop Career Center programs" may serve the same individual seeking
access to related services, e.g., Workforce Investment Act (WIA), Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA), and unemployment compensation. In the case
of TAA-certified workers, those seeking assistance will likely receive
it from at least three One-Stop partner programs. The issues raised by
states related to burden and administrative costs are compounded by the
separate systems and the inability of such systems to efficiently
interact.
Historically, since the enactment of the TAA program, its focus has
been directed at certifying groups of workers whose layoffs were the
result of foreign trade, and providing training and income support to
help them achieve their career goals. Over the past several years it
has become apparent that this program must be integrated into the
larger workforce investment system. This would increase accountability
to taxpayers regarding outcomes, and ensure that workers receive
benefits to which they are entitled.
While we have taken actions over the past few years to implement
reporting and performance systems for the TAA program, and we believe
progress is being made, we have additional work planned. It is
important to note that until 2001, performance information for the TAA
program was not even collected. With that said, please find below the
actions we have taken regarding this issue:
1. TAA does not contain statutory language requiring the collection of
data or performance goals; rather, the focus of the Trade Act was on
providing benefits-income support and training-for workers impacted by
international trade. However, under the authority of the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA), DOL instituted a reporting system
for states to record and report training and outcomes on participants
receiving benefits under TAA (we had no data until 2001), including the
implementation of the Trade Act Participant Report (TAPR) and
establishment of national performance goals.
2. Under the TAPR, we implemented national quarterly wage records as
the data source for capturing participant outcomes. As a result,
several states have integrated WIA and TAA systems, including
reporting, tracking and recordkeeping. We are promoting these models as
part of peer-to-peer technical assistance.
3. ETA issued Training and Guidance Letter No. 3-03, "Data Validation
Policy for Employment and Training Programs," Changes 1 and 3, in
August 2004 and July 2005, respectively, which implemented the data
validation system for the TAPR.
4. A portion of the Secretary of Labor's national reserve funds has
been used over the past several years to fund National Emergency Grant
dual enrollment projects designed to provide comprehensive services to
workers by integrating the two programs, including requiring the same
performance goals and recordkeeping for TAA and WIA dislocated worker
programs.
5. The Dislocated Worker Forums initiated in December 2003 articulated
new DOL policies that emphasized the importance of integration of
services for dislocated workers funded under various programs, as well
as quality data and performance reporting:
6. The TAA program will be covered under the common measures being
implemented by DOL this year. Trade program officials were included in
a recent series of training sessions on reporting under the common
measures, including sessions devoted exclusively to the TAPR and co-
enrollment issues as well as data validation. This allowed us to
address several issues: 1) some states are not reporting TAA
participants who have received services other than training, 2) when
TAA participants are counted, and 2) what constitutes a service.
7. In conjunction with the move to common measures, the TAA program
implemented a significant revision of the TAPR, beginning in the first
quarter of Fiscal Year 2006. New instructions, additional edit-checks,
and significant technical assistance were provided to states to improve
the quality of TAA reporting.
8. The Department is in the process of developing a monitoring guide
solely focused on the Trade Program as an addendum to the ETA Core
Monitoring Guide. The monitoring guide will be field-tested this year.
This will be the first time such a guide has been developed for the TAA
program.
9. We agree that the use of wage records provides for more of a
historical perspective on program performance and does not reflect
recent changes, management reforms or improved performance on a real-
time basis.
Thank you again for the information provided in the report. If you
would like additional information, please don't hesitate to call me at
(202) 693-2700.
Signed by:
Emily Stover DeRocco:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director (202) 512-7215:
Acknowledgments:
Dianne Blank, Assistant Director:
Kathy Peyman, Analyst-in-Charge:
In addition, the following staff made major contributions to this
report: Vidhya Ananthakrishnan, Melinda Cordero, Laura Heald, Adam
Roye, and Leslie Sarapu served as team members; Amanda Miller and
Carolyn Boyce advised on design and methodology issues; Rachael
Valliere advised on report preparation; Jessica Botsford advised on
legal issues; Lise Levie verified our findings.
[End of section]
GAO Related Products:
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Most Workers in Five Layoffs Received
Services, but Better Outreach Needed on New Benefits. GAO-06-43.
Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2006.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to
Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. GAO-06-82.
Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but
Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650.
Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005.
Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment
Services to Claimants. GAO-05-413. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches
to Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements. GAO-05-539.
Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005.
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms Have Accelerated Training
Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges Remain. GAO-04-1012.
Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed
Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO-
04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.
National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve
Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant
Awards and Improve Data. GAO-04-496. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures
to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness. GAO-02-275.
Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Experiences of Six Trade-Impacted
Communities. GAO-01-838. Washington, D.C.: August 24, 2001.
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Trends, Outcomes, and Management Issues in
Dislocated Worker Programs. GAO-01-59. Washington, D.C.: October 13,
2000.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Delaware, Hawaii, North Dakota, and Wyoming were not included in
our survey because they were not allocated TAA funds in fiscal year
2005.
[2] Not all workers covered by an approved TAA petition are
individually eligible for TAA benefits and services. Individual
eligibility also depends on factors including the timing and duration
of a worker's layoff. In this report, when referring to workers
eligible for the TAA program, we generally mean workers who have been
certified as potentially eligible for the program.
[3] For more information on the earlier TAA programs see GAO, Trade
Adjustment Assistance: Trends, Outcomes, and Management Issues in
Dislocated Worker Programs, GAO-01-59 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 13,
2000); GAO, Trade Adjustment Assistance: Experiences of Six Trade-
Impacted Communities, GAO-01-838 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 24, 2001).
[4] Extended income support payments may be reduced based on other
income and training allowances.
[5] The four other reasons listed in the TAA statute are (1) worker
will be recalled by former employer, (2) worker is within 2 years of
retirement, (3) worker is unable to participate in training because of
health problems, and (4) approved training is either not available or
not available at a reasonable cost, or no training funds are available.
[6] State officials generally have responsibility for approving
training and determining eligibility for extended income support, while
local one-stop centers are the main point of intake and actual delivery
of TAA services and benefits.
[7] Unlike other federally funded employment and training programs that
operate on a program year basis, the TAA program operates on a federal
fiscal year basis, that is, fiscal year 2004 ran from October 1, 2003,
to September 30, 2004.
[8] To cover the cost of administration, states also receive an
additional 15 percent of any additional funding they receive from the
reserved training funds or the job search/relocation allowances.
[9] See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider
Alternative Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting
Requirements, GAO-05-539 (Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005).
[10] Labor distinguishes between UI benefits and TRA benefits in
determining exit because TRA benefits are tied to continuous
participation in skills training or having a waiver of that
requirement.
[11] Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Office of the Budget and
Comptroller Operations, Single Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ended June
30, 2003 (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Aug. 31, 2005).
[12] GAO, Trade Adjustment Assistance: Most Workers in Five Layoffs
Received Services, but Better Outreach Needed on New Benefits, GAO-06-
43 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2006). For this study, potentially
eligible participants are defined as all workers covered under the
certification, whether or not they enrolled in the TAA program.
[13] Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Labor, GPRA Data
Validation Review: Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, (Department of
Labor Office of Audit Report Number 22-05-007-03-330, Sept. 15, 2005).
[14] According to an official involved in the operation of WRIS, all
states except Hawaii currently provide UI wage data to WRIS.
[15] GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have
Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to
Help, GAO-04-657 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004).
[16] See GAO-06-43.
[17] Labor's Web site for TAA statistics can be found at
http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/taa_stats.cfm.
[18] GAO-04-657.
[19] See GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance
Information for Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005), and GAO, Program Evaluation: An Evaluation
Culture and Collaborative Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity, GAO-
03-454 (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2003).
[20] The WIA Dislocated Worker program serves dislocated workers in
general and is not reserved for those affected by international trade.
States and local areas are required to monitor the outcomes of WIA
Dislocated Worker program participants on measures including job
placement, job retention, and earnings change.
[21] GAO-05-539.
[22] Delaware, Hawaii, North Dakota, and Wyoming were not included in
our survey because they were not allocated TAA funds in fiscal year
2005.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
