National Emergency Grants
Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award Timeliness and Data Collection, but Further Steps Can Improve Process Gao ID: GAO-06-870 September 5, 2006Between January 2004 and December 2005, more than 30,000 mass layoffs involving 50 or more workers occurred in the United States, causing more than 3.4 million workers to lose their jobs. National emergency grants expand services to laid-off workers when other state and federal programs are insufficient to meet their needs. GAO assessed (1) whether Labor has shortened grant award times since GAO's 2004 report and was meeting own timeliness goal, (2) the uniformity of the program data that Labor now collects, and (3) Labor's oversight of national emergency grant projects. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed information for program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of 2005 and compared it with data collected for program years 2000- 2002.
We found that Labor's new electronic application system has, on average, shortened award processing time and most national emergency grants were awarded within Labor's goal of 30 working days as measured by GAO--from the time the application is submitted to the issuance of the award letter. In program year 2004, Labor averaged 25 working days to award grants, in contrast to program years 2000-2002, when it averaged 50 working days. Moreover, in program year 2004, Labor awarded 70 percent of all grants within 30 working days, in contrast to 38 percent for program years 2000- 2002. Although Labor has improved the overall timeliness for awards, award times ranged from 1 to 90 working days and varied by type of grant. For example, disaster grants were awarded, on average, in 16 days, but regular grants were awarded, on average, in 45 days. Delays in obtaining funds adversely impacted some grantees' ability to provide services. Also, we found that Labor's electronic application system and its timeliness goal did not capture every phase of the award process. In addition, users of this system reported some technical problems. Labor has taken steps to improve its two main sources of data for assessing how grant funds are used--the quarterly progress reports and the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) database. Labor introduced a new electronic quarterly report system in program year 2004. Since then, grantees have generally been submitting uniform and consistent information. Also, our review of available WIASRD data for program year 2004 shows that at least 92 percent of states that received national emergency grants included information on these grants in their WIASRD submissions. Labor's regional offices oversee each project to track performance and compliance with program requirements by conducting various monitoring activities, including approving program operating plans, reviewing quarterly progress reports, and conducting site visits. However, Labor has not issued complete, program-specific guidance that would standardize monitoring practices across regions, states, and local areas and help ensure consistent practices. In addition, officials in most of the states and local areas we visited said that Labor does not regularly help disseminate information about how states and local areas are managing their national emergency grant projects.
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-06-870, National Emergency Grants: Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award Timeliness and Data Collection, but Further Steps Can Improve Process
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-870
entitled 'National Emergency Grants: Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award
Timeliness and Data Collection, but Further Steps Can Improve Process'
which was released on September 5, 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 Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2006:
National Emergency Grants:
Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award Timeliness and Data Collection, but
Further Steps Can Improve Process:
National Emergency Grants:
GAO-06-870:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-870, a report to congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
Between January 2004 and December 2005, more than 30,000 mass layoffs
involving 50 or more workers occurred in the United States, causing
more than 3.4 million workers to lose their jobs. National emergency
grants expand services to laid-off workers when other state and federal
programs are insufficient to meet their needs. GAO assessed (1) whether
Labor has shortened grant award times since GAO‘s 2004 report and was
meeting own timeliness goal, (2) the uniformity of the program data
that Labor now collects, and (3) Labor‘s oversight of national
emergency grant projects. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed
information for program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of 2005 and
compared it with data collected for program years 2000-2002.
What GAO Found:
We found that Labor‘s new electronic application system has, on
average, shortened award processing time and most national emergency
grants were awarded within Labor‘s goal of 30 working days as measured
by GAO”from the time the application is submitted to the issuance of
the award letter. In program year 2004, Labor averaged 25 working days
to award grants, in contrast to program years 2000-2002, when it
averaged 50 working days. Moreover, in program year 2004, Labor awarded
70 percent of all grants within 30 working days, in contrast to 38
percent for program years 2000-2002. Although Labor has improved the
overall timeliness for awards, award times ranged from 1 to 90 working
days and varied by type of grant. For example, disaster grants were
awarded, on average, in 16 days, but regular grants were awarded, on
average, in 45 days. Delays in obtaining funds adversely impacted some
grantees‘ ability to provide services. Also, we found that Labor‘s
electronic application system and its timeliness goal did not capture
every phase of the award process. In addition, users of this system
reported some technical problems.
Labor has taken steps to improve its two main sources of data for
assessing how grant funds are used”the quarterly progress reports and
the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD)
database. Labor introduced a new electronic quarterly report system in
program year 2004. Since then, grantees have generally been submitting
uniform and consistent information. Also, our review of available
WIASRD data for program year 2004 shows that at least 92 percent of
states that received national emergency grants included information on
these grants in their WIASRD submissions.
Labor‘s regional offices oversee each project to track performance and
compliance with program requirements by conducting various monitoring
activities, including approving program operating plans, reviewing
quarterly progress reports, and conducting site visits. However, Labor
has not issued complete, program-specific guidance that would
standardize monitoring practices across regions, states, and local
areas and help ensure consistent practices. In addition, officials in
most of the states and local areas we visited said that Labor does not
regularly help disseminate information about how states and local areas
are managing their national emergency grant projects.
Figure: Average Time Taken to Award Grants (Program Years 200-2002 and
2004):
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of Figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that Labor take steps to (1) extend its electronic
application system to capture the entirety of the award process through
final approval and issuance of award letters, (2) solicit information
from users of the application system to guide future refinements to
this system, (3) distribute more complete guidance and tools for
monitoring grant projects, and (4) explore cost-effective ways to
disseminate information to states and local areas to help them learn
about promising practices for managing national grant projects. Labor
generally agreed with these recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-870].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at (202)
512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Labor Has Shortened Award Times, but Does Not Track the Entire Award
Process:
Labor Has Made Progress in Collecting More Uniform Program Data:
Labor Monitors Projects for Compliance with Basic Program Requirements,
but Some States Reported That Better Guidance Is Needed:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Timeliness Assessment:
Analysis of Program Data:
Assessment of Data Quality:
Interviews with Labor Officials:
Site Visits:
Appendix II: Summary of Funds Awarded for Regular, Disaster, and Dual
Enrollment Grants during Program Year 2004:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Average Time to Award Grants by Quarter in Which Application
Was Received (Program Years 2000-2002 and Program Year 2004):
Table 2: Number and Percent of Quarterly Progress Reports Provided by
Quarter Awarded (Program Year 2004):
Table 3: Information Contained in Progress Reports:
Table 4: Number of States That Submitted Data to WIASRD:
Table 5: Number of National Emergency Grants Awarded and Used in GAO
Analysis:
Table 6: Number of Grants Received during Program Year 2004 and the
First 2 Quarters of Program Year 2005:
Figures:
Figure 1: Funding Reserved from the Dislocated Worker Allotment for the
Secretary of Labor:
Figure 2: Distribution of National Emergency Grant Funds (Program Year
2004):
Figure 3: Percentage of Funds Awarded by Type of Grant (Program Years
2000 -First 2 Quarters of 2005):
Figure 4: Average Time Taken to Award National Emergency Grants
(Program Years 2000-2002 and Program Year 2004):
Figure 5: Percent of Grants Awarded Within 30 Days by Project Type
(Program Year 2004):
Figure 6: Differences between How GAO and Labor's Electronic
Application System Track the National Emergency Grant Award Process:
Abbreviations:
BRAC: Base Realignment and Closure:
ETA: Employment and Training Administration:
ONR: Office of National Response:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
WIASRD: Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 5, 2006:
The Honorable Arlen Specter:
Chairman:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and
Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ralph Regula:
Chairman:
The Honorable David R. Obey:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and
Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Between January 2004 and December 2005, the United States experienced
more than 30,000 mass layoffs involving 50 or more workers, with more
than 3.4 million workers losing their jobs. These losses affected all
types of workers--including those working in the professional, service,
information processing, and manufacturing sectors--in every state in
the nation. To help supplement regular dislocated worker funding, the
Department of Labor (Labor) administers the National Emergency Grant
program. Authorized under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998,
national emergency grants provide temporary employment, training
assistance, and other supports to workers whose jobs were lost because
of major economic dislocations, such as plant closings or natural
disasters, such as floods and hurricanes. Dislocated workers can obtain
temporary employment performing clean-up activities after natural
disasters, or training--such as working with computers--to obtain the
skills needed to re-enter the workforce in a new occupation following a
layoff. These grants are time-limited discretionary awards to help
states and local areas provide employment and training services when
basic formula WIA funds are insufficient to meet the needs of
dislocated workers.
In program year 2004--which began on July 1, 2004, and ended on June
30, 2005--and the first 2 quarters of program year 2005--July 1, 2005,
to December 31, 2005--Labor awarded about $342 million in grant funds
($232 million for program year 2004 and $110 million for the first 2
quarters of program year 2005). Most of these funds were provided as
disaster grants for victims of hurricanes and floods. Grantees used
these funds to provide temporary employment and humanitarian aid such
as water and other necessities to individuals who lost their jobs as a
result of these natural disasters. In addition, about $30 million of
program year 2004 funds were awarded to help states and localities
mitigate anticipated job losses from military base realignments and
closures. These base realignment and closure (BRAC) grants funded
activities to help states initiate early community planning to provide
assistance to large numbers of workers who might lose their jobs due to
BRAC decisions. In addition, regular national emergency grants provided
training, often through community colleges, and support services, such
as psychological or financial counseling, for workers unemployed due to
mass layoffs.
In April 2004, we reported that services to dislocated workers were
being affected by delays in awarding national emergency grants in
program years 2000 through 2002. [Footnote 1] We identified weaknesses
in Labor's processing and management of national emergency grants,
particularly with respect to the timeliness with which they were
awarded and the quality of data collected regarding how grant funds
were being used. In light of these problems, Congress mandated that we
examine the program's current administration. Our objectives were to
(1) determine whether Labor has shortened grant award times since our
2004 report and has been able to meet its own goal for awarding grants
in 30 working days, (2) examine the uniformity of the program data that
Labor is currently collecting, and (3) assess Labor's monitoring and
oversight of national emergency grant projects. To obtain national
information on Labor's application processing, data collection, and
monitoring activities, we collected and analyzed information on grants
awarded in program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of program year
2005. We examined grants from this time period because program year
2004 was the first year that Labor implemented a new electronic
application system designed to improve grant award timeliness. We
calculated the number of days it took Labor to award grants from the
grantees' perspective. We began counting on the day the application was
submitted and ended on the day the award letter was sent by Labor. We
then compared our findings with the results of our prior study to
determine if there were changes in processing time. To assess the
quality of the data that Labor currently collects, we interviewed
officials in headquarters and examined quarterly progress reports to
determine the completeness and uniformity of this information. We
assessed the reliability of Labor's data and concluded they were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. We also examined
official grant files and reviewed relevant program documents. We
conducted site visits in four states (Florida, Maine, Oregon, and
Texas). We chose these states because they received substantial
national emergency grant funding in program year 2004 and the first 2
quarters of program year 2005; represented different geographical
regions; and received grants addressing a variety of dislocation
events, including plant closings, natural disasters, out-sourcing, and
military base realignments. To evaluate Labor's monitoring activities,
we conducted semi-structured interviews with state and local officials
involved in monitoring and regional office officials in four of Labor's
six regional offices that are responsible for monitoring national
emergency grants. We selected these regions because they monitored
activities in the states that we visited. See appendix I for a detailed
discussion of our scope and methodology. Our work was conducted between
September 2005 and July 2006 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
In program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of program year 2005, we
found that, on average, Labor had shortened award processing time
compared with program years 2000-2002, and as a result, workers
generally received services in a more timely manner. In July 2004,
Labor implemented a new electronic application system and streamlined
the amount of information applicants are required to submit. Both of
these actions helped Labor improve grant award timeliness and, on
average, meet its 30-working-day processing goal as we measured it--
from the date the application was submitted to the date the approval
letter was sent. Labor averaged 25 working days to award grants during
program year 2004, while during program years 2000-2002 the average was
50 working days. Similarly, the average time to award both regular and
disaster national emergency grants was shorter in program years 2004
and the first 2 quarters of 2005 than during the prior period.
Moreover, in program year 2004, Labor awarded 70 percent of all grants
within its goal of 30 working days. In contrast, in program years 2000-
2002, only 38 percent were awarded in 30 working days. Similarly, in
the first 2 quarters of 2005, Labor averaged 21 working days and
awarded 67 percent of the grants within its 30-working-day goal--almost
all of which were disaster grants related to Hurricane Katrina. While
Labor has improved the overall timeliness for grant awards, challenges
remain. For example, in program year 2004, award times ranged from 1 to
90 working days and differed by type of grant, with disaster grants for
workers dislocated due to national disasters taking 16 working days on
average and regular national emergency grants for workers dislocated
due to plant closings taking 45 working days on average. As a result,
within 30 working days, Labor awarded 91 percent of disaster grants,
but only 16 percent of regular grants. In addition, we found that
Labor's electronic application system does not capture every phase of
the award process. Specifically, it excludes the time needed to obtain
the Secretary's approval and issue award notification letters to
grantees, which added 11 additional working days, on average, to the
process in 2004. Thus, while grants are, on average, being awarded more
quickly than in the past, Labor's electronic application system and its
process for measuring timeliness do not fully capture the total time
taken to award grants.
Labor has taken steps to improve its two main sources of data for
assessing how grant funds are used--the quarterly progress reports and
the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD). In
program year 2004, Labor issued guidance to state workforce agencies
requiring them to submit progress report data electronically. Also in
that year, Labor introduced an electronic progress report system that
standardized the data elements collected in progress reports. We found
that grantees have generally been submitting uniform and consistent
information since the new system was introduced. In addition, most
quarterly reports were submitted within the required time frames. These
reports generally provided complete information on data elements that
describe the use of funds, including the types of projects funded, the
numbers of participants receiving services, and the total expenditures
at the grantee and project level. Labor also issued guidance on WIASRD
in August 2004 that it uses to track the employment status and wages of
individuals who participated in grant projects. This guidance was
intended to clarify to state and local workforce agencies that they are
required to submit data on national emergency grant participants to
WIASRD. Our analysis and interviews with state and local officials
suggest that the guidance has generally been effective in helping
states include data on national emergency grants in their WIASRD
submissions. For example, our review of available WIA data for program
year 2004 showed that this database contains information for 44 of the
48 states that received national emergency grants and were subject to
WIA reporting requirements.
Labor oversees national emergency grant projects by monitoring states
and local areas for compliance with basic program rules, but many state
and local officials we interviewed said they would like to see Labor
collect and disseminate information from other states and local areas
on promising practices for grant management. Labor's regional offices,
which have primary responsibility for oversight, carry out a variety of
activities to monitor grants, including conducting internal risk
assessments, reviewing project operating plans, and assessing financial
and quarterly progress reports. Regional officials also periodically
visit state grantees and project sites to assess their program and
financial management, examine case files, and ensure that services--
such as temporary employment for dislocated workers to clean up after
natural disasters--are being delivered. While the state and local
officials we interviewed generally said that Labor's oversight
activities were beneficial, these officials said they lacked complete,
program-specific guidance that could help them more efficiently
coordinate with Labor and conduct their own monitoring activities.
Labor has developed a draft monitoring tool for this program, but has
only distributed it to three of the four regional offices included in
our study for their use in site visits. Labor has yet to finalize the
tool and formally distribute it to state and local officials. Many of
the officials we interviewed told us they would benefit from such a
tool. In addition to more specific guidance on monitoring
responsibilities, some state and local grant recipients reported that
they could benefit from information on promising practices in other
states and localities for effectively managing grant projects and
providing aid to dislocated workers. They noted, however, that Labor
does not currently facilitate opportunities for disseminating such
information to grantees.
To further improve its management of the national emergency grant
process, we are recommending that Labor extend its electronic
application system and its timeliness measurement process to capture
the entirety of the award process from the perspective of grant
applicants, specifically through final approval and issuance of award
letters by the Secretary. We are also recommending that Labor solicit
information from users of the application system to guide future
refinements to this system. In addition, we are recommending that Labor
distribute more complete guidance and tools for monitoring grant
projects and explore cost-effective ways to disseminate information to
states and local areas to help them learn about promising practices for
managing national grant projects. In its comments, Labor generally
agreed with our recommendations.
Background:
WIA authorizes the National Emergency Grant program and funds the
program through its dislocated worker funding stream. This funding
stream is one of three specified by WIA to fund services for its client
groups--dislocated workers, youth, and adults. Dislocated workers
include individuals who have been terminated or laid off, or who have
received a notice of termination or layoff, individuals who were self-
employed but are unemployed as a result of general economic conditions
in the community or natural disasters, and unemployed or underemployed
homemakers who are no longer supported by family members. Under WIA,
the Secretary of Labor retains 20 percent of dislocated worker funds in
a national reserve account to be used for national emergency grants,
demonstrations, and technical assistance and allots the remaining funds
to each of the states, local workforce boards, and other entities that
demonstrate to the Secretary the capacity to respond to the
circumstances relating to particular dislocations. Of the amount
reserved by the Secretary in any program year, at least 85 percent of
the Secretary's national reserve must be used for national emergency
grants (see fig. 1). During program year 2004, this amount was
approximately $232 million and $110 million[Footnote 2] during the
first 2 quarters of program year 2005, for a total of $342 million.
Figure 1: Funding Reserved from the Dislocated Worker Allotment for the
Secretary of Labor:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
National emergency grants expand WIA services that are available to
dislocated workers when dislocated worker formula funds are
insufficient to meet the needs of affected workers. Under WIA,
dislocated workers can receive three levels of services--core,
intensive, and training. Core services include job search and placement
assistance, preliminary skill assessments, and the provision of labor
market information, and are routinely available to anyone seeking
assistance through a WIA service center. Dislocated workers who need
additional services to find work can receive intensive services, such
as case management and comprehensive assessments. In addition,
dislocated workers may also qualify for training services, including
occupational skills training, on-the-job training, skill upgrading, and
entrepreneurial training.
Typically, state workforce agencies apply for national emergency grants
and distribute funds to local workforce boards in areas affected by the
dislocations. These boards, in turn, usually contract with
organizations that provide services or administrative support. Grantees
can apply for grants that fund three major types of projects:
* regular grants to retrain workers who have lost their jobs because of
plant closings, layoffs, or military base realignments or closures;
* disaster grants to provide temporary employment, humanitarian
services, and retraining for workers affected by natural disasters and
other catastrophic events;
and:
* dual enrollment grants to provide supportive assistance such as case
management services and vocational assessments to workers certified by
Labor to receive training under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform
Act of 2002. These are usually for workers who have lost their jobs
because of increased imports from, or shifts in production to, foreign
countries.
Like other programs authorized under WIA, national emergency grant
projects must be designed to achieve performance outcomes that support
Labor's performance goals. Also, Labor requires grantees to collect
data from local projects, certify the accuracy of the data, and use
them to complete various reports, such as the quarterly progress
reports for national emergency grants and the state's WIASRD data
submissions. Quarterly progress reports include project-level
information on actual performance to date--for example, the number of
individuals participating in a project; the services provided, such as
intensive services or training; and the number who entered employment.
WIASRD is a national database of individual records containing
characteristics, activities, and outcome information for all enrolled
participants who receive services or benefits under WIA, including
national emergency grants. The database includes the services and
training that each participant received and information on their
subsequent employment status and wages. In coordination with federal
agencies, the Office of Management and Budget developed uniform
evaluation measures, called "common measures," for job training and
employment programs and other cross-cutting programs. The common
measures were designed to institute uniform definitions for
performance--such as the percentage of participants who become
employed--across federal workforce programs. Beginning in July 2005,
national emergency grant projects became subject to the common measures
and Labor expected grantees to include them in its WIASRD data
collection and reporting activities for program year 2004.[Footnote 3]
In program year 2004, Labor funded a special type of grant, called a
base realignment and closure (BRAC) planning grant. These grants
provided resources to states and communities to plan for anticipated
base closures, unlike other regular grants that provide more general
employment-related services for dislocated workers. Accordingly, states
that could be affected by BRAC actions were eligible to apply for
national emergency grant funds. Labor issued guidance in May 2005 that
explained the procedures for obtaining these grants. This guidance also
specified that applicants must submit their applications by June 10,
2005.
Labor's Office of National Response, in the Employment and Training
Administration (ETA), administers the National Emergency Grant program.
Headquarters and regional staff share responsibility for program
administration and oversight. At headquarters, officials make grant
award decisions and determine whether grants will be awarded in a
single payment or in increments. For grants disbursed in incremental
payments, grantees are required to submit supplemental information
along with their requests for future funding increments. Labor has
established an internal goal of making these decisions within 30
working days. After grants are awarded, regional officials assume the
lead role in conducting monitoring and oversight activities. For
example, after the grant is approved, regional officials review and
approve the project operating plan and budget, conduct at least one
site visit that examines project activities, and review quarterly
progress reports and financial reports.
Distribution and Uses of National Emergency Grants:
In program year 2004, Labor distributed about $232 million from the
dislocated worker fund for national emergency grants to 43 states, the
District of Columbia, and three territories (see fig. 2). The funding
levels of these grants varied greatly. Labor awarded the largest
proportion of funds to Florida--$76 million in grant funds, or 33
percent of the program's total funds awarded during that year--mostly
in the form of disaster grants to help the state respond to the needs
of workers displaced as a result of hurricane damage. Ohio and
California each received over $20 million in grants, primarily to help
them meet the needs of workers displaced as a result of floods and
storm disasters. Other states, such as Maine and Massachusetts, each
received over $6 million, mainly to help them meet the needs of workers
dislocated because of plant closings and downsizing, and Oregon
received over $2 million, in part to help workers dislocated because of
competition from foreign countries.
Figure 2: Distribution of National Emergency Grant Funds (Program Year
2004):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Over the past 5 program years, Labor has awarded proportionally more of
its national emergency grant funds for disaster grants and a smaller
proportion for regular and dual-enrollment grants. In program year
2000, Labor awarded only 4 percent of its funds for disaster grants. In
contrast, in program year 2004, Labor awarded about 57 percent of grant
funds for disaster grants and 29 percent for regular grants (see fig.
3). For the first 2 quarters of program year 2005, Labor awarded 92
percent of all the funds it awarded during those quarters for disaster
projects in 11 states--Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas-
-largely in response to damage and dislocations resulting from
Hurricane Katrina. During these 2 quarters, Labor awarded about 8
percent for regular grants.
Figure 3: Percentage of Funds Awarded by Type of Grant (Program Years
2000-First 2 Quarters of 2005):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.
Funds awarded for BRAC and dual enrollment grants in program year 2005
equal less than 1 percent and are excluded from the graph.
Data for program year 2005 represent only funds awarded during the
first 2 quarters of that year.
[End of figure]
Labor Has Shortened Award Times, but Does Not Track the Entire Award
Process:
Labor's new electronic application system and the streamlined
information requirements for national emergency grant applications
have, on average, shortened the time it takes to award grants to 25
working days and helped Labor award 70 percent of the grants in program
year 2004 within 30 working days from the submission of the application
to the issuance of the award letter. However, regular national
emergency grants (regular grants) took longer to award--45 working days
on average--and most were not awarded within Labor's 30-working-day
goal. Moreover, Labor's new system and its stated goal for awarding
grants do not take into account important steps in the award process,
such as obtaining approval from key Labor officials and issuing the
award letter to the grantee. These steps added 11 days on average to
the award process and thus hampered Labor's ability to accurately
evaluate its performance. Further, the steps that are excluded involve
actions that are of great importance from the grantees' perspective--
the Secretary's final approval and the award letter notifying them of
the amount of money awarded. In addition, some users reported technical
problems with the system that have affected its convenience and
efficiency.
Labor's New Electronic System Has Improved Grant Award Times:
During program years 2000-2002,[Footnote 4] Labor took 50 working days,
on average, to award national emergency grants--as measured from the
date an application is submitted until the date an award letter is
issued. In program year 2004, Labor reduced its average award
processing time to 25 days for all types of grants--decreasing the
average processing time for regular grants from 63 to 45 days[Footnote
5] and for disaster grants from 34 to 16 days. Although Labor averaged
29 working days to award dual enrollment grants in 2004--longer than
the 14 days it averaged during program years 2000-2002--most were
awarded within its 30-day goal and these grants comprised less than 10
percent of the grants awarded that year (see fig. 4).
Figure 4: Average Time Taken to Award National Emergency Grants
(Program Years 2000-2002 and Program Year 2004):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
Notes: We did not include program year 2003 in our analysis because
Labor's electronic application system and procedures for using this
system were not implemented until program year 2004.
The average for all grants is a weighted average.
[End of figure]
Overall, Labor awarded 70 percent of all grants within 30 working days
compared with 38 percent in program years 2000-2002. Also in program
year 2004, Labor met this goal for 100 percent of the BRAC grants and
for 91 percent of all disaster grants. In contrast, awards for regular
grants took longer. Processing time for these grants averaged 45
working days, and Labor awarded only 16 percent of these grants within
its 30-working-day goal (see fig. 5).
Figure 5: Percent of Grants Awarded Within 30 Days by Project Type
(Program Year 2004):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
The new electronic system has facilitated improvements in award
processing time in three ways. First, because applicants cannot submit
an application on this system without completing all required data
fields, Labor no longer has to return incomplete applications. Second,
because applications are electronic, submissions are nearly
instantaneous and the format allows Labor and applicants to exchange
information more efficiently than the former paper-based system. Third,
under the new system, the applicants are only required to provide basic
information--including project type, planned number of participants,
planned support services, and the project operator. Grantees receiving
regular grants have 90 days from the grant approval date to submit
project operating plans, staffing plans, and budgets. In the case of
disaster grants, grantees have 60 days from the grant approval date to
submit the required information.
Although average processing times have decreased in program year 2004,
the time to award grants varied widely, ranging from 1 to 90 working
days, with some types of grants taking longer than others. Several
factors likely contributed to this variance. For example, several
disaster grants were processed very quickly--within 1 to 2 days--
because of the urgent need for funds in areas impacted by storms and
flooding. Also, the 39 BRAC grants were awarded, on average, in only 14
days, reflecting the short period of time that was available to submit
and process them. In order to be eligible for BRAC grants, states had
to be included on the Department of Defense's preliminary base
realignment and closure list, issued on May 13, 2005, and also had to
follow Labor's special guidance for these grants that specified that
applications were due by June 10. Because the funds for these grants
were reserved from program year 2004 money, Labor had to award them by
June 30, the end of that program year. In contrast, questions about the
appropriateness of project applications delayed the approval of other
grants. For one project we visited, officials reported that approval
for an application to address a plant closure took 46 working days
(about 2 months), largely because Labor questioned the amount of funds
they requested and required them to prepare additional information to
justify the costs. In addition, some grantees reported that delays in
obtaining funds adversely impacted their ability to provide services,
because individuals who needed employment left the affected area to
search for work in other places or found other jobs instead of waiting
for grant funds to become available. For example, one project we
visited was only serving 20 of 50 eligible participants according to
project officers, because workers could not afford to wait for
services, left the area, or found other jobs.
Award Processing Time Was More Consistent during Program Year 2004:
Labor's award processing times were more consistent across quarters in
program year 2004 than in program years 2000-2002. In program year
2004, the average number of working days that Labor took to award
grants for the first 3 quarters ranged from 34 to 41 days, and only 16
days during the fourth quarter. In program years 2000-2002, the number
of days to award grants during the first 3 quarters varied more widely-
-from 61 to 74 days (see table 1).
Table 1: Average Time to Award Grants by Quarter in Which Application
Was Received (Program Years 2000-2002 and Program Year 2004):
Quarter application was received: First;
Average number of days to award grants in program years 2000-2002: 61;
Average number of days to award grants in program year 2004: 34.
Quarter application was received: Second;
Average number of days to award grants in program years 2000-2002: 74;
Average number of days to award grants in program year 2004: 40.
Quarter application was received: Third;
Average number of days to award grants in program years 2000-2002: 71;
Average number of days to award grants in program year 2004: 41.
Quarter application was received: Fourth;
Average number of days to award grants in program years 2000-2002: 19;
Average number of days to award grants in program year 2004: 16.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
In addition, in program year 2004, the quarter in which an application
was awarded corresponded more closely to the quarter in which it was
submitted. This is in contrast to program years 2000-2002, when most
awards took place in the fourth quarter despite the fact that
applications were received at a fairly steady rate during the last 3
quarters of the program year.
Average Award Times Improved in the First 2 Quarters of Program Year
2005:
During the first half of program year 2005, Labor awarded grants in 21
working days, on average, and 67 percent were awarded within 30 working
days. The overwhelming majority of these grants were in response to
Hurricane Katrina, many of which were awarded within a few working
days. For example, Louisiana submitted its application on September 1,
2005, and Labor awarded the grant 1 day later. The quick approval time
for most of the Katrina-related grants reflected the hurricane's
severity, the commitment of Labor officials to provide assistance as
quickly as possible, and the ability of most grantees to submit
streamlined, emergency applications. Under Labor's regulations,
grantees may file an abbreviated application to receive emergency
funding within 15 days of an event that was declared a disaster by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Grantees in the states that we visited had limited experience using the
new electronic application system in requesting incremental payments.
Moreover, Labor awarded only a relatively small number of increments in
program year 2004 and the first half of program year 2005.
Approximately 60 percent of grants were awarded in one payment during
program year 2004 and about 75 percent during the first 2 quarters of
program year 2005. Also, the period we examined was less than a year
after most grantees had received their initial award and, therefore,
most had not yet submitted applications for their next increments.
Labor's Electronic System Does Not Capture the Entire Award Process:
Despite improvements in average award timeliness, Labor's goal for
awarding new grant applications and its electronic application system
exclude important steps in the award process. More specifically, the
time needed to obtain the Secretary's approval and issue award
notification letters to grantees is not captured by the system and is
not counted as part of the 30-working-day goal. Labor's electronic
application system captures the time from the application submission
date through the date that its Office of National Response (ONR)
approves the grant application. However, from the grantees' point of
view, the actual process continues until the grant is reviewed and
approved by the Secretary and an award letter is issued (see fig. 6).
Our prior work also identified this problem with Labor's measurement
process.[Footnote 6] In program year 2004 and the first half of program
year 2005, these steps added 11 working days, on average, to award
processing times. For example, officials in one state we visited
reported that, although they received verbal confirmation that an
application was approved, the service provider would not begin services
without formal assurance that they would be paid. Consequently,
services were delayed for more than 2 weeks until the official award
letter was received.
Figure 6: Differences between How GAO and Labor's Electronic
Application System Track the National Emergency Grant Award Process:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Users of Labor's Electronic Application System Reported Some
Difficulties:
Officials in all of the states we visited told us that, while their
experience with the new electronic application system has generally
been positive, they have encountered some technical problems. These
included minor problems that made the application process more
difficult, as well as more serious issues that forced grantees to
submit applications outside of the system. Some states had problems
resolving technical questions because, for example, the system would
not allow users and Labor's technical assistance staff to view the same
screen and data simultaneously. Officials in one state described a
series of delays they experienced in submitting an application because
they could not view a discrepancy in how a zip code had been entered on
two different screens.
Officials in all four of the states we visited also reported more
general problems, including a lack of flexibility when modifying an
existing application. For example, officials in three states told us
that they had to adjust data to fit the system--in one case, by adding
up data on participants and services provided at different service
centers and entering it as information from one service center---and
that the system did not allow them to report changes in plans
accurately. Officials in one of these states told us they could not use
the system for one of their applications because several of its
required fields, such as the number of participants, did not apply to
their application. In addition, officials that we interviewed in all
four of our site visits reported that Labor has not systematically
queried users for feedback on the problems faced while using the new
electronic application system. Several officials felt that minor
changes to the system, such as providing more room to explain unusual
features of some projects and better directions regarding how to
proceed from one screen to another, would make the system more
efficient and easier to use.
Labor Has Made Progress in Collecting More Uniform Program Data:
Labor has taken actions to improve its two sources of information on
national emergency grants--the quarterly progress reports and WIASRD.
In program year 2004, Labor implemented a new electronic quarterly
progress report system and required all grantees to use this system
beginning in January 2005. Since these actions have been taken, our
analysis suggests that most grantees have generally submitted required
quarterly progress reports to Labor electronically and have certified
and reported the required data elements. In addition, in August 2004,
Labor issued guidance that clarified that states were required to
include information on national emergency grants as part of their
submissions to WIASRD. In that year, 85 percent of all states that
received national emergency grants submitted national emergency grant
data to WIASRD.
Labor Has Taken Steps to Improve Quarterly Report Data:
Labor's new electronic quarterly progress report system has enhanced
its ability to collect, review, and manage quarterly report
information. More specifically, the new system requires grantees to
submit data electronically, using a standard format in which all data
fields are defined. As a result, the system has improved the uniformity
and consistency of the progress report data Labor collects compared
with our findings from program years 2000-2002. Labor also issued
guidance specifying that beginning January 1, 2005, grantees would be
required to submit the progress reports using the new system for all
grants awarded after July 1, 2004 (the beginning of program year 2004).
We found that during program year 2004, grantees generally submitted
electronic quarterly progress reports as required. By contrast, for
program years 2000-2002, we could not provide information on the extent
that grantees provided quarterly progress reports because the reports
were not collected on an integrated system and were not available
electronically (see table 2).
Table 2: Number and Percent of Quarterly Progress Reports Provided by
Quarter Awarded (Program Year 2004):
Quarter: 1st;
Expected reports: 9;
Actual reports: 9;
Percent of expected reports received: 100.
Quarter: 2nd;
Expected reports: 64;
Actual reports: 52;
Percent of expected reports received: 81.
Quarter: 3rd;
Expected reports: 27;
Actual reports: 22;
Percent of expected reports received: 81.
Quarter: 4th;
Expected reports: 30;
Actual reports: 27;
Percent of expected reports received: 90.
Quarter: Total;
Expected reports: 130;
Actual reports: 110;
Percent of expected reports received: 85.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
The new progress report system has also improved the completeness of
the data that Labor collects. During program year 2004, we found that
all grantees that were expected to provide data did in fact complete
each of the required data fields. Under the new system, grantees must
enter basic information--such as counts of participants, counts of
services that are provided, and expenditures at the grantee and project
level--before they can submit their reports electronically. By
contrast, when we examined reports submitted for program years 2000-
2002, we found that the quarterly report data were generally
incomplete. For example, of 13 states for which we sampled progress
report data, only about half reported the number enrolled in core and
intensive services and just one reported expenditures by type of
service (see table 3).
Table 3: Information Contained in Progress Reports:
Data element: Enrollment in core services;
Program years 2000-2002: Number of states expected to provide
information: 13;
Program years 2000-2002: Number of states that provided information: 7;
Program years 2000-2002: Percentage of states in sample that provided
information: 54;
Program year 2004: Number of states expected to provide information:
45;
Program year 2004: Number of states that provided information: 45;
Program year 2004: Percentage of states expected to provide information
that provided information: 100.
Data element: Enrollment in intensive services;
Program years 2000- 2002: Number of states expected to provide
information: 13;
Program years 2000-2002: Number of states that provided information: 5;
Program years 2000-2002: Percentage of states in sample that provided
information: 38;
Program year 2004: Number of states expected to provide information:
45;
Program year 2004: Number of states that provided information: 45;
Program year 2004: Percentage of states expected to provide information
that provided information: 100.
Data element: Enrollment in training services;
Program years 2000-2002: Number of states expected to provide
information: 13;
Program years 2000-2002: Number of states that provided information:
11;
Program years 2000-2002: Percentage of states in sample that provided
information: 85;
Program year 2004: Number of states expected to provide information:
36;
Program year 2004: Number of states that provided information: 36;
Program year 2004: Percentage of states expected to provide information
that provided information: 100.
Data element: Expenditure by type of services;
Program years 2000-2002: Number of states expected to provide
information: 13;
Program years 2000-2002: Number of states that provided information: 1;
Program years 2000-2002: Percentage of states in sample that provided
information: 8;
Program year 2004: Number of states expected to provide information:
45;
Program year 2004: Number of states that provided information: 45;
Program year 2004: Percentage of states expected to provide information
that provided information: 100.
Data element: Entered employment;
Program years 2000-2002: Number of states expected to provide
information: 13;
Program years 2000-2002: Number of states that provided information:
12;
Program years 2000- 2002: Percentage of states in sample that provided
information: 92;
Program year 2004: Number of states expected to provide information:
45;
Program year 2004: Number of states that provided information: 45;
Program year 2004: Percentage of states expected to provide information
that provided information: 100.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Labor Has Increased the Amount of Information on Grants in WIASRD:
After Labor issued its August 2004 guidance on data submission to
WIASRD, the level of compliance with this requirement substantially
increased. We found that 44 of the 48 states that likely fell under
this requirement (90 percent) submitted data as required during program
year 2004. Officials in all four states we visited reported that,
overall, they did not encounter problems submitting data to WIASRD as
required by Labor. In contrast, in program year 2001, only one of the
six states that received the largest proportions of national emergency
grant funds submitted data to WIASRD (see table 4).
Table 4: Number of States That Submitted Data to WIASRD:
Program year: 2004;
Number of states in analysis: 51;
Number of states required to report: 48;
Number of states reporting: 44;
Percentage reporting: 90.
Program year: 2001;
Number of states in analysis: 6;
Number of states required to report: 6;
Number of states reporting: 1;
Percentage reporting: 17.
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: We counted the District of Columbia as a state.
[End of table]
Although grantees are complying with the WIA data submission
requirements, some questions about the reliability of these data
remain. As we reported in November 2005,[Footnote 7] Labor requires
states to validate the data it submits to WIASRD, but it does not have
methods in place to review state validation efforts nor does it hold
states accountable for complying with its data requirements.
Labor Monitors Projects for Compliance with Basic Program Requirements,
but Some States Reported That Better Guidance Is Needed:
Labor's regional offices oversee each project to track its performance
and compliance with basic program rules and requirements, but several
state and local officials we interviewed told us that more specific
guidance is needed. Regional officials conduct a variety of monitoring
activities, including approving program operating plans, reviewing
quarterly progress reports, and conducting site visits. However, Labor
has not issued complete, program-specific guidance that would
standardize monitoring practices across regions, states, and local
areas and help ensure consistent practices. As a result, some states
have developed their own monitoring tools. In addition, officials in
most of the states and local areas we visited said that Labor does not
regularly help disseminate information about how states and local areas
are managing and monitoring their national emergency grant projects.
Labor's Regional Offices Monitor Projects for Compliance, but Labor Has
Yet to Issue Complete Guidance for the Program:
Profile of Regional Office Monitoring:
In one state we visited, regional and state officials scheduled their
on-site monitoring reviews concurrently. Before the visit, regional
officials sent the state a notification letter; a review planning tool
that described the areas of the review”including program design,
program and financial management, and service or product delivery”and
supporting documents required; a list of local area and service
provider staff to be interviewed; monitoring schedules; and the
regional office‘s guide for reviewing participant files. According to a
local area official, the regional officials said they would pull a
random sample of about 15 percent of participant files during the site
visit to ensure that workers‘ eligibility and the types of services
they received had been properly documented. They also sent a copy of
Labor‘s Core Monitoring Guide used for monitoring a variety of grant
programs. During the visit, regional staff interviewed dislocated
workers participating in the projects. State officials accompanied
regional officials and conducted similar interviews. At the conclusion
of the on-site visit, regional staff met with state and local officials
to discuss their findings. Regional staff had 30 days to submit their
written report, which allowed state and local officials time to address
the problems that the monitors had identified, and take corrective
actions.
To ensure that projects effectively serve dislocated workers, Labor,
states, and local areas carry out a variety of monitoring activities
throughout the lifecycle of a project to track its progress toward
meeting its stated purpose and goals. Labor officials in the four
regions we visited told us that they follow the same general monitoring
procedures for all grants, but tailor them as necessary for high-risk
or complex grants. At the beginning of the grant, and at each quarter
during the lifecycle of the grant, regional officials assess the
potential risk level of the grant. They also review the project
operating plan and analyze quarterly financial and progress reports to
assess their timeliness, accuracy, and effectiveness in providing
services to dislocated workers. Regional officials we interviewed told
us they generally conduct their most comprehensive review at the
project's midpoint by visiting grantees and project operators.
According to Labor's guidance on administering the National Emergency
Grant program, a major purpose of the on-site review for incremental
grants is to review the need for funds to complete the project. The
guidance also states that Labor officials will assess how well a
grantee and its project operators are meeting the major requirements of
the program. These include participant eligibility, financial
management controls, project management, effectiveness of support
services, and job placement services. For disaster grants, they also
include temporary jobs for dislocated workers. The regional officials
reported that they usually meet with state and local workforce
officials, including project operators and dislocated workers enrolled
in the project, and conduct an exit interview with cognizant officials
to discuss their findings.
According to officials in the four regions that we interviewed, Labor
modifies monitoring and reporting procedures as necessary to ensure
that these reviews are appropriate in terms of the special
characteristics of some grants. For example, one regional official said
they visit projects designated as "high risk" within 90 days after
grant award, rather than waiting until the project's midpoint, and work
closely with the grantee throughout the project. Another Labor official
said they monitor a grantee more closely if they identify potential
problems. For example, if a grantee is late in submitting its quarterly
progress reports or falls behind in enrolling dislocated workers in a
project, the regional office will conduct more extensive monitoring
such as telephoning the grantees or conducting additional site visits
to determine the cause. Labor can also require grantees to submit
reports in addition to their regular quarterly progress reports for
unusually large or highly visible grants, such as those awarded to
serve Hurricane Katrina victims. According to workforce officials in
two states that received Katrina grants and a cognizant regional
official, they initially had to submit numerous reports with different
information on a daily basis, then every 3 days, and then on a weekly,
biweekly, and monthly basis.
Workforce officials in most of the states and local areas we visited
told us that Labor's oversight activities were generally beneficial and
that the monitoring activities often provided them with helpful
feedback for managing their grants. For example, an official in one
local area said that Labor's monitoring resulted in them strengthening
their requirements for maintaining critical documents in participant
files. In this area, local officials routinely required caseworkers to
check a sample of their coworkers' files to ensure that they were
complete and contained sufficient documentation to justify the services
that were provided in order to prepare for federal monitoring.
Despite the general satisfaction with Labor's monitoring efforts, we
found that the guidance states and local areas received varied widely.
Labor issued a draft monitoring guide specifically for national
emergency grants in late 2005, which was based on its generic Core
Monitoring Guide. Officials in three of the four states we visited said
that they had received a copy of the draft monitoring guide, but none
of the local areas we visited had. In fact, one regional office
official we interviewed had not yet received a copy of the guide.
Further, state officials told us that they had received different types
of information from Labor to help them prepare for their on-site
monitoring visits. For example, officials in all four states said that
regional officials sent a list before their visit of the documents and
participant files that they needed to review. An official in one state
said that they had not always received written guidance on how to
conduct their own monitoring or prepare for Labor's monitoring visits.
To compensate for the lack of consistent, complete guidance, all four
states we visited had developed their own tools for monitoring local
areas, and many of the local areas used their state's tool or a
modified version of it to monitor their service providers. For example,
one local area official told us they modified the state's tool by
adding procedures for reviewing the documents that support a dislocated
worker's eligibility to receive services. An official in another state
told us that their agency expanded the tool that it uses for its 90-day
on-site monitoring visit for its mid-point review by including a review
of the documents in participant files and project cost.
Labor Has Not Disseminated Information on Promising Practices:
Officials in most states and local areas we visited said they do not
currently have opportunities to share information about promising
practices for managing and monitoring national emergency grant
projects, but many expressed an interest in having such opportunities.
Workforce officials in one state and six local areas said that having
Labor facilitate opportunities for disseminating such information would
help project operators manage their projects more efficiently. For
example, according to officials in one local area, they had experience
operating grant projects that served dislocated workers in the
agricultural sector, but not in the manufacturing sector. When faced
with a layoff in a computer chip manufacturing plant, they had to take
time to research potential job openings and skills required for jobs in
this sector. Having information on how other areas served workers laid
off by manufacturing companies would have helped shorten the time they
spent developing the project and allowed them to serve workers more
quickly. Officials in one state also suggested that Labor could help by
creating a central repository of documents used in managing projects,
such as examples of agreements used to establish temporary worksites
for disaster victims. Although Labor has a Web site for sharing
promising practices with the WIA community, Labor has not used this
tool for facilitating improved information sharing about national
emergency grants.
Conclusions:
National emergency grants are an important tool for helping states and
localities respond to mass layoffs and disasters that result in large
numbers of dislocated workers. When major layoffs and disasters such as
hurricanes or floods occur, states and local areas must respond quickly
to ensure that dislocated workers receive the services they need to re-
enter the workforce. While the National Emergency Grant program is
relatively small, the reemployment activities it funds are important
for workers who have been dislocated due to mass layoffs or natural
disasters. In this regard, it is critical for grant funds to reach
program participants in a timely manner. By implementing an automated
application system, Labor has, on average, substantially decreased the
time required to award national emergency grants. However, because this
system does not capture the entire grant process--including the time
taken for the Secretary to issue final award letters--there is room for
further improvement. Moreover, while the system has improved the
timeliness of grant awards, some state and local officials have
encountered problems using the system. Effective management and
oversight requires a mechanism for states and localities to provide
feedback to Labor, to ensure that potential system weaknesses are
identified and addressed.
Effective monitoring is also a critical component of grant management.
While Labor's monitoring activities appear to provide reasonable
assurance that grant funds are being used for their intended purpose,
some state and local officials said that standardized guidance would be
beneficial. In particular, once Labor finalizes its monitoring guide
for grants, state and local officials responsible for grant
administration and oversight could benefit from more consistent,
specific federal guidance. Moreover, state and local officials could
benefit from innovative project management practices that have promoted
efficiency and effectiveness in other states where grant funds have
been awarded. However, without disseminating such information through a
centralized mechanism, it is difficult for state and local officials to
learn of promising practices in other jurisdictions and use this
information early in the planning process.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
In order for Labor to better manage the grant award process and system,
accurately assess the time it takes to award grant funds, and improve
its guidance to states and local areas, we recommend that the Secretary
of Labor take additional actions. In particular, Labor should:
* extend its electronic application system and its own timeliness
measurement process to capture the entirety of the award process from
the perspective of grant applicants, specifically through final
approval and issuance of award letters by the Secretary;
* solicit information from users of the application system to guide
future refinements to this system;
* distribute more complete guidance and tools for monitoring grant
projects; and:
* explore cost-effective ways to disseminate information to states and
local areas to help them learn about promising practices for managing
national grant projects.
Agency Comments:
The Department of Labor commented on a draft of this report, indicating
that it agrees with our findings and the intent of all four
recommendations (see app. III). Labor's comments also highlighted some
actions that it has already taken or plans to take. Labor reported that
it has recently implemented a new version of its electronic application
system that has expanded its capacity to manage all elements of the
application process. However, Labor did not directly address our
recommendation that the system be expanded to capture the entirety of
the awards process, including final approval and issuance of the award
letters by the Secretary. In addition, Labor agreed that information
from users is needed to guide future refinements to the system but
noted that a survey of all users might require a formal paperwork
clearance process and, therefore, would provide less timely information
than its present system involving user tests with selected grantees.
While we agree that information from user tests is useful, we believe
feedback from all grantees would better inform future enhancements.
Regarding our recommendation that it distribute more complete guidance
and monitoring tools, Labor explained that it is currently field-
testing a monitoring guide for national emergency grant projects, and
plans to release this guide by September 2006. We believe such a guide
could be an important step toward establishing consistent monitoring
practices. Also, Labor concurred with our recommendation that it
explore cost-effective ways to disseminate information to states and
local areas to help them learn about promising practices for managing
national emergency grant projects. In particular, Labor noted that it
has relied upon venues such as national conferences and forums to
facilitate the sharing of information among grantees. Labor did not
provide technical comments on the draft.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor and
other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
GAO's home page at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Please contact me on 202-512-7215 or at nilsens@gao.gov if you or
members of your staff have any questions about this report. 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 IV.
Signed by:
Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Our objectives were to (1) determine whether Labor has shortened grant
award times since our 2004 report and has been able to meet its own
goal of 30 working days for awarding grants, (2) examine the uniformity
of the program data that Labor is currently collecting, and (3) assess
Labor's monitoring and oversight of national emergency grant projects.
Timeliness Assessment:
To examine how long it takes Labor to award national emergency grants
and determine whether Labor is meeting its 30-working-day timeliness
goal, we obtained a listing from Labor of all grants awarded during
program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of program year 2005. We
selected this time period because Labor implemented its new electronic
application system and streamlined application data requirements at the
beginning of program year 2004. We computed (1) the number of working
days between the date of the original grant application and the date of
the award letter to determine overall grant award times and award times
by type of grant and (2) the percentage of grants that were awarded
within Labor's timeliness goal of 30 working days. We supplemented data
from Labor's electronic database with data from its hard copy grant
files, including information contained in the award letters for all
grants awarded during program year 2004, because the application system
did not contain data for all steps in the awards process. We excluded
two grants because they were not submitted electronically.
Table 5: Number of National Emergency Grants Awarded and Used in GAO
Analysis:
Type of grant: BRAC grants;
Program year 2004: Number of grants awarded: 39;
Program year 2004: Number of files with complete information used in
our analyses: 39;
Program year 2005--first 2 Quarters: Number of grants awarded: 0;
Program year 2005--first 2 Quarters: Number of files with complete
information used in our analyses: 0.
Type of grant: Regular grants;
Program year 2004: Number of grants awarded: 26;
Program year 2004: Number of files with complete information used in
our analyses: 25;
Program year 2005--first 2 Quarters: Number of grants awarded: 2;
Program year 2005--first 2 Quarters: Number of files with complete
information used in our analyses: 2.
Type of grant: Disaster grants;
Program year 2004: Number of grants awarded: 11;
Program year 2004: Number of files with complete information used in
our analyses: 11;
Program year 2005--first 2 Quarters: Number of grants awarded: 12;
Program year 2005--first 2 Quarters: Number of files with complete
information used in our analyses: 12.
Type of grant: Dual enrollment;
Program year 2004: Number of grants awarded: 8;
Program year 2004: Number of files with complete information used in
our analyses: 7;
Program year 2005--first 2 Quarters: Number of grants awarded: 1;
Program year 2005--first 2 Quarters: Number of files with complete
information used in our analyses: 1.
Type of grant: Total;
Program year 2004: Number of grants awarded: 84;
Program year 2004: Number of files with complete information used in
our analyses: 82;
Program year 2005--first 2 Quarters: Number of grants awarded: 15;
Program year 2005--first 2 Quarters: Number of files with complete
information used in our analyses: 15.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
In order to compare the award processing times for program year 2004
with program years 2000-2002, we converted calendar days to working
days because Labor's present day goal is expressed in working days.
Analysis of Program Data:
To determine the degree that grantees submitted quarterly progress
reports with the required data elements, we analyzed the extent that
grantees submitted quarterly progress reports by quarter and the extent
that grantees completed required data fields during program year 2004.
We eliminated the BRAC planning grants from these analyses because
quarterly report data were designed to capture information on
participants and services, not planning activities. We compared the
completeness of data submitted during program year 2004 with the
completeness of data submitted during program years 2000-2002.
To assess the extent that grantees complied with requirements to summit
data to the WIASRD database, we identified states that received
national emergency grants in programs years 2002, 2003, and 2004, and,
therefore, were likely to have participants that left projects in
program year 2004. We examined the WIASRD database to see if it
contained program year 2004 data for these states. We compared the
percentage of grantees that provided national emergency grant data to
the database in 2004 with the percentage that provided data in 2000,
based on the sample of grantees that were selected for our previous
analysis in 2004.
Assessment of Data Quality:
To assess the reliability of data about award processing times, we
interviewed officials responsible for compiling these data. We verified
the accuracy of the application dates that Labor gave us by comparing
them with dates on the actual applications and dates on the electronic
application system. Also, we drew a 10-percent random sample of all
grants awarded in program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of 2005
and verified information in the electronic system with information in
the official hard copy grant files. To assess the reliability of
information in the electronic quarterly progress report system, we
examined materials related to data entry and examined the completeness
of data submissions. Also, we interviewed state and local officials
regarding their data collection procedures and verification processes.
We determined the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
our report.
Interviews with Labor Officials:
We interviewed officials in the Office of National Response and the
Office of Grant and Contract Management in Labor's Employment and
Training Administration to obtain information on application
processing, program polices, and grants management. We also interviewed
key staff in the Office of Field Operations and officials in four
regional offices where we conducted site visits. They are in charge of
monitoring and oversight to obtain information on data reporting,
oversight requirements, and monitoring procedures. In addition, we
interviewed officials representing Labor's contractor to obtain
technical information on the electronic application system.
Site Visits:
To learn more about the application system, data requirements, and
oversight from the grantees', service providers', and dislocated
workers' points of view, we conducted site visits to four states--
Florida, Maine, Oregon, and Texas. We selected these states because
they each received a substantial amount of national emergency grant
funding and, together, represented different geographical regions, had
received a diversified mix of regular, BRAC, disaster, and dual
enrollment grants. (See table 5.) On these site visits, we conducted in-
depth interviews with state workforce officials, representatives of
local workforce investment boards, and service providers. In addition,
we visited four work sites that provided temporary employment to
individuals who had lost their jobs as a result of Hurricanes Katrina
and Wilma.
Table 6: Number of Grants Received during Program Year 2004 and the
First 2 Quarters of Program Year 2005:
State: Florida;
Total: 4;
Regular: [Empty];
Disaster: 3;
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
BRAC: 1.
State: Maine;
Total: 4;
Regular: 3;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
BRAC: 1.
State: Oregon;
Total: 6;
Regular: 2;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: 4;
BRAC: [Empty].
State: Texas;
Total: 3;
Regular: 1;
Disaster: 1;
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
BRAC: 1.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
Our work was conducted between September 2005 and July 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Summary of Funds Awarded for Regular, Disaster, and Dual
Enrollment Grants during Program Year 2004:
State: Alabama;
Regular: BRAC: $1,000,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: $235,619;
Disaster: $2,500,000;
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: $3,735,619.
State: Alaska;
Regular: BRAC: 615,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 615,000.
State: Arkansas;
Regular: BRAC: 1,000,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: 400,000;
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 1,400,000.
State: California;
Regular: BRAC: 1,370,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 7,285,457;
Disaster: 11,665,000;
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 20,320,457.
State: Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;
Regular: BRAC: [Empty];
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: 2,000,000;
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 2,000,000.
State: Colorado;
Regular: BRAC: [Empty];
Regular: Non-BRAC: 2,500,000;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 2,500,000.
State: Connecticut;
Regular: BRAC: 1,000,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 753,775;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 1,753,775.
State: District of Columbia;
Regular: BRAC: 950,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 950,000.
State: Federated States;
of Micronesia;
Regular: BRAC: [Empty];
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: 2,288,320;
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 2,288,320.
State: Florida;
Regular: BRAC: 1,000,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: 75,000,000;
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 76,000,000.
State: Georgia;
Regular: BRAC: 1,000,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 3,030,218;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 4,030,218.
State: Guam;
Regular: BRAC: 475,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 475,000.
State: Hawaii;
Regular: BRAC: 45,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 45,000.
State: Idaho;
Regular: BRAC: [Empty];
Regular: Non-BRAC: 1,817,046;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 1,817,046.
State: Illinois;
Regular: BRAC: 1,500,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 1,500,000.
State: Indiana;
Regular: BRAC: 1,500,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 1,500,000.
State: Iowa;
Regular: BRAC: 382,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 658,519;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 1,040,519.
State: Kansas;
Regular: BRAC: 850,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 324,031;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 1,174,031.
State: Kentucky;
Regular: BRAC: 300,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 300,000.
State: Louisiana;
Regular: BRAC: 1,000,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: 392,288;
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 1,392,288.
State: Maine;
Regular: BRAC: 1,273,628;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 5,163,228;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 6,436,856.
State: Maryland;
Regular: BRAC: 1,237,500;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: $378,000;
Total: 1,615,500.
State: Massachusetts;
Regular: BRAC: 1,000,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 6,656,568;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 7,656,568.
State: Michigan;
Regular: BRAC: 221,778;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 221,778.
State: Minnesota;
Regular: BRAC: 500,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 500,000.
State: Mississippi;
Regular: BRAC: 250,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 250,000.
State: Missouri;
Regular: BRAC: 1,000,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 2,753,652;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 3,753,652.
State: Montana;
Regular: BRAC: 76,690;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 1,654,649;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 1,731,339.
State: Nebraska;
Regular: BRAC: 75,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 75,000.
State: Nevada;
Regular: BRAC: 528,500;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 528,500.
State: New Hampshire;
Regular: BRAC: [Empty];
Regular: Non-BRAC: 347,967;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 347,967.
State: New Mexico;
Regular: BRAC: 1,000,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 1,000,000.
State: New York;
Regular: BRAC: 730,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 615,750;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 1,345,750.
State: North Carolina;
Regular: BRAC: 1,000,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 10,014,637;
Disaster: 7,000,000;
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 18,014,637.
State: North Dakota;
Regular: BRAC: 1,000,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: [Empty];
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 1,000,000.
State: Ohio;
Regular: BRAC: 1,000,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 285,516;
Disaster: 19,570,845;
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 20,856,361.
State: Oklahoma;
Regular: BRAC: 250,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 1,294,351;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 1,544,351.
State: Oregon;
Regular: BRAC: [Empty];
Regular: Non-BRAC: 1,807,462;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: 374,007;
Total: 2,181,469.
State: Pennsylvania;
Regular: BRAC: 1,000,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 217,540;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: 10,407,984;
Total: 11,625,524.
State: Rhode Island;
Regular: BRAC: [Empty];
Regular: Non-BRAC: 472,499;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 472,499.
State: South Carolina;
Regular: BRAC: 500,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 1,984,638;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 2,484,638.
State: South Dakota;
Regular: BRAC: 1,000,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 795,000;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 1,795,000.
State: Tennessee;
Regular: BRAC: [Empty];
Regular: Non-BRAC: 670,000;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 670,000.
State: Texas;
Regular: BRAC: 235,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 4,595,931;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 4,830,931.
State: Virginia;
Regular: BRAC: 1,000,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 3,924,493;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 4,924,493.
State: West Virginia;
Regular: BRAC: 616,764;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 1,924,604;
Disaster: 2,000,000;
Dual enrollment: [Empty];
Total: 4,541,368.
State: Wisconsin;
Regular: BRAC: 75,000;
Regular: Non-BRAC: 5,911,645;
Disaster: [Empty];
Dual enrollment: 369,902;
Total: 6,356,547.
State: Total;
Regular: BRAC: $29,556,860;
Regular: Non-BRAC: $67,694,795;
Disaster: $122,816,453;
Dual enrollment: $11,529,893;
Total: $231,598,001.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training:
Washington, D.C. 20210:
Aug 3 2006:
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:
We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft of the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report regarding National Emergency Grants
(NEGs) entitled, "Labor Has Improved Its Award Timeliness and Data
Collection, but Further Steps Can Improve Process" (GAO Report 06-870).
We are gratified that the report recognizes the efforts the Department
has made to improve the administration of the NEG program. Though we
have made a number of improvements, we believe that more can be done.
The Department believes that it has made substantial efforts to improve
the management and administration of the NEG program including the
timeliness of grant awards and is pleased that these efforts have been
recognized in this report.
To update you on our progress, the Department just recently implemented
version three of the NEG electronic application process. In each
version substantial improvements have been made to the system's
capacity to process NEGs, as well as in grantee usability. This
includes improving the system s ability to process grant modifications
by, among other things, adding the grant officer functions. As each
phase has been implemented, the Department has conducted a user test by
selected grantees and has solicited grantee comments.
Recommendations: The GAO made four recommendations in its report. They
are identified below followed by the Department's responses--:
1. "Extend its electronic application system and its own timeliness
measurement process to capture the entirety of the award process from
the perspective of grant applicants, specifically through final
approval and issuance of award letters by the Secretary."
The electronic application system has been designed for the purpose of
electronic management of the National Emergency Grant program including
the application process through award and subsequent administrative
functions. This includes grant modifications and project reporting as
well as linkages to grant monitoring activities, as reflected in the
Grant Electronic Management System (GEMS).
The Department manages the timeliness with a view to the total time
required from application to award and, within that context, has made
substantial improvements in the overall processing time since the prior
GAO report (04-496). We made these improvements by focusing attention
on the area that provided the greatest opportunity for improvement-
management of the review and recommendation processes. In managing
against the standard for overall timeliness, the Department has the
capacity to look at each key element of the process and can and will
monitor each.
2. "Solicit information from users of the application system to guide
future refinements to this system."
The Department has conducted user tests with selected grantees prior to
the implementation of each version of the NEG e-application system.
These user tests have been helpful in identifying refinements that can
be made to the functionality of the system. In addition, we have
offered several training opportunities for grantees that have provided
an opportunity for questions as well as an exchange of ideas on system
operation. Finally, we are in constant communication with grantees
concerning the operation of the system and to gain ideas and insights
for system improvement. For example, as the result of working with
grantees, we are working to streamline the planning forms by
integrating duplicative data elements for regular and disaster
projects. These opportunities for grantee input are more timely and
contextual than a survey or solicitation that might require a formal
paperwork clearance process.
3. "Distribute more complete guidance and tools for monitoring grant
projects."
The Department has developed a formal core monitoring guide for which a
supplement has been drafted and field-tested to reflect specific NEG
monitoring issues. This guide was being field-tested in two regions at
the time of the GAO review, and comments are now being incorporated
into a final guide that will be released to all regions no later than
September 30, 2006. This guide will provide clarification of the
Department's expectations for the operation of NEG projects.
4. "Explore cost -effective ways to disseminate information to states
and local areas to help them learn about promising practices for
managing national grant processes."
We will explore cost-effective mechanisms for grantees to share
promising practices for managing national grant processes. Currently,
we utilize national forums to facilitate the sharing of information
among states and local areas. Additionally, workshops on promising
practices utilized by successful grantees and/or service providers were
held at the Rapid Response Summit in May 2006 and the Department's
annual Workforce Innovations conference.
If you would like additional information, please don't hesitate to call
me at (202) 693-2700 or Erica R. Cantor, Acting Administrator, Office
of National Response, at (202) 693-3500.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Emily Stover DeRocco:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director (202) 512-7215:
Acknowledgments:
Jeremy D. Cox, Assistant Director; Kathleen D. White, Analyst-in-
Charge; Carolyn S. Blocker; and Daniel C. Cain served as team members
and made major contributions to all aspects of this report. In
addition, Catherine Hurley and Jean McSween advised on methodological
and analytic aspects of this report; Susan Bernstein advised on report
preparation; Jessica Botsford advised on legal issues; Yunsian Tai
helped conduct data analyses; Robert Alarapon provided graphic design
assistance; and Katharine Leavitt verified our findings.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Labor Should Take Action to Ensure
Performance Data Are Complete, Accurate, and Accessible. GAO-06-496.
Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006.
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.
National Emergency Grants: Services to Workers Hampered by Delays in
Grant Awards, but Labor Is Initiating Steps Actions to Improve Grant
Award Process. GAO-04-222. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2003.
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] GAO, National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to
Improve Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite
Grant Awards and Improve Data, GAO-04-496 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16,
2004).
[2] At the time of our review, data were available for only the first 2
quarters of program year 2005.
[3] Grantees were required to use the new measures beginning on July 1,
2005.
[4] In our prior study, we reported award times in calendar days and
noted that Labor took, on average, 92 calendar days to award regular
grants. We used working days in our analysis because Labor clarified
that, in program year 2004 and in the future, its 30-day goal refers to
working days.
[5] We considered BRAC and regular grants as separate grant categories
because of differences in their characteristics, although Labor
considers both regular grants.
[6] See GAO, National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to
Improve Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite
Grant Awards and Improve Data GAO-04-496 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16,
2004).
[7] GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions
to Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed, GAO-06-82
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2005).
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:
