Workforce Investment Act
Additional Actions Would Further Improve the Workforce System Gao ID: GAO-07-1051T June 28, 2007Since the Workforce Investment Act's (WIA) enactment in 1998, GAO has issued numerous reports that included recommendations regarding many aspects of WIA, including performance measures and accountability, funding formulas and spending, one-stop centers, and training, as well as services provided to specific populations, such as dislocated workers, youth, and employers. Collectively, these studies employed an array of data collection techniques, including surveys to state and local workforce officials and private sector employers; site visits; interviews with local, state, and Labor officials; and analysis of Labor data and documents. This testimony draws upon the results of these reports, issued between 2000 and 2007, as well as GAO's ongoing work on one-stop infrastructure, and discusses issues raised and recommendations made. Specifically, the testimony addresses (1) progress made by federal, state, and local officials in implementing key provisions of WIA; and (2) challenges that remain in implementing an integrated employment and training system.
Seven years after implementing the workforce investment system under WIA, the system's infrastructure continues to evolve. Nationwide, the number of comprehensive one-stop centers has decreased somewhat, but not uniformly across states. States generally reported increased availability of services for some of the mandatory programs at comprehensive one-stop centers. However, despite WIA's requirement that all mandatory partners provide services through the one-stop system, some states have maintained a completely separate system for delivering services for Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Services. Adults and dislocated workers receive a wide range of services through the one-stop system. Local areas used about 40 percent of their WIA funds in 2003 to provide training services to an estimated 416,000 participants, but the vast majority of job seekers receive services other than training. States and local areas have generally focused their youth services on in-school youth and have found it difficult to recruit and retain out-of-school youth. Most medium and large employers are aware of and use the system and are quite satisfied with its services, but they generally use one-stop centers to fill their needs for low-skilled workers. Despite the successes state and local officials have had since WIA's implementation, some aspects of the law and other factors have hampered their efforts. Funding issues continue to hamper the system. WIA's formulas that are used to allocate funds to states do not reflect current program design and have caused wide fluctuations in funding levels from year to year that do not reflect actual layoff activity. In addition, Labor's focus on expenditures without including obligations overestimates the amount of funds available to provide services at the local level. Moreover, little is known about what the system is achieving because only a small minority of participants are captured in the performance measures, and Labor has not conducted an impact study to assess the effectiveness of the one-stop system, as required under WIA. Labor has taken some steps to improve guidance and communication, but does not involve key stakeholders in the development of some major initiatives and provides too little time for states and local areas to implement them. We are suggesting that Congress consider taking steps to improve the stability of the funding and enhance the data available on people who use the system. In addition, in our past work, we have recommended that Labor use obligations when estimating states' available funds, that it comply with the requirements of WIA and conduct an impact evaluation, and that it consider alternative approaches in implementing new initiatives that involve ongoing consultation with key stakeholders. Labor has taken little action on these recommendations.
GAO-07-1051T, Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve the Workforce System
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1051T
entitled 'Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further
Improve the Workforce System' which was released on June 28, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong
Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on Education and Labor, House
of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 1:30 p.m. EDT:
Thursday, June 28, 2007:
Workforce Investment Act:
Additional Actions Would Further Improve the Workforce System:
Statement of Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
GAO-07-1051T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1051T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on
Education and Labor, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Since the Workforce Investment Act‘s (WIA) enactment in 1998, GAO has
issued numerous reports that included recommendations regarding many
aspects of WIA, including performance measures and accountability,
funding formulas and spending, one-stop centers, and training, as well
as services provided to specific populations, such as dislocated
workers, youth, and employers. Collectively, these studies employed an
array of data collection techniques, including surveys to state and
local workforce officials and private sector employers; site visits;
interviews with local, state, and Labor officials; and analysis of
Labor data and documents. This testimony draws upon the results of
these reports, issued between 2000 and 2007, as well as GAO‘s ongoing
work on one-stop infrastructure, and discusses issues raised and
recommendations made. Specifically, the testimony addresses (1)
progress made by federal, state, and local officials in implementing
key provisions of WIA; and (2) challenges that remain in implementing
an integrated employment and training system.
GAO is making no new recommendations at this time.
What GAO Found:
Seven years after implementing the workforce investment system under
WIA, the system‘s infrastructure continues to evolve. Nationwide, the
number of comprehensive one-stop centers has decreased somewhat, but
not uniformly across states. States generally reported increased
availability of services for some of the mandatory programs at
comprehensive one-stop centers. However, despite WIA‘s requirement that
all mandatory partners provide services through the one-stop system,
some states have maintained a completely separate system for delivering
services for Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Services. Adults and
dislocated workers receive a wide range of services through the one-
stop system. Local areas used about 40 percent of their WIA funds in
2003 to provide training services to an estimated 416,000 participants,
but the vast majority of job seekers receive services other than
training. States and local areas have generally focused their youth
services on in-school youth and have found it difficult to recruit and
retain out-of-school youth. Most medium and large employers are aware
of and use the system and are quite satisfied with its services, but
they generally use one-stop centers to fill their needs for low-skilled
workers.
Despite the successes state and local officials have had since WIA‘s
implementation, some aspects of the law and other factors have hampered
their efforts. Funding issues continue to stymie the system. WIA‘s
formulas that are used to allocate funds to states do not reflect
current program design and have caused wide fluctuations in funding
levels from year to year that do not reflect actual layoff activity. In
addition, Labor‘s focus on expenditures without including obligations
overestimates the amount of funds available to provide services at the
local level. Moreover, little is known about what the system is
achieving because only a small minority of participants are captured in
the performance measures, and Labor has not conducted an impact study
to assess the effectiveness of the one-stop system, as required under
WIA. Labor has taken some steps to improve guidance and communication,
but does not involve key stakeholders in the development of some major
initiatives and provides too little time for states and local areas to
implement them. We are suggesting that Congress consider taking steps
to improve the stability of the funding and enhance the data available
on people who use the system. In addition, in our past work, we have
recommended that Labor use obligations when estimating states‘
available funds, that it comply with the requirements of WIA and
conduct an impact evaluation, and that it consider alternative
approaches in implementing new initiatives that involve ongoing
consultation with key stakeholders. Labor has taken little action on
these recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1051T].
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]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me here today to present the findings from our
work on the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). As you know, WIA
represented a significant departure from earlier job training programs.
Passed in 1998 and implemented by most states in July 2000, it was
designed to unify a fragmented employment and training system and
create a single, universal system--a one-stop system that could serve
the needs of all job seekers and employers. WIA sought to streamline
the delivery of federally funded employment and training services,
enabling job seekers to make informed choices among training providers
and course offerings, and enhancing the private sector role in the
workforce system. WIA gave states and localities flexibility in
deciding how to implement the one-stop system, allowing local one-stops
to tailor their systems to local needs. Four separate federal agencies-
-the Departments of Labor (Labor), Health and Human Services (HHS),
Education, and Housing and Urban Development (HUD)--fund 16 categories
of programs that are required to provide services through the one-stop
system. In addition to programs that are required to take part in the
new system, Labor encourages states and localities to include optional
partners, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), in
order to better meet the specific workforce development needs of their
local areas. Labor takes a lead role in this system and is responsible
for assessing the effectiveness of Labor-funded programs and for
providing guidance and technical assistance to states and localities as
programs deliver their services through the one-stop system.
Since WIA was enacted, we have issued numerous reports that included
recommendations regarding many aspects of WIA, including performance
measures and accountability, funding formulas and spending, one-stop
centers, and training, as well as services provided to specific
populations, such as dislocated workers, youth, and employers. As the
Congress considers reauthorizing WIA, you asked us to summarize our
findings and recommendations and provide our assessment of the current
status of the system envisioned under WIA. My testimony today will
discuss (1) progress made by federal, state, and local officials in
implementing key provisions of WIA and (2) challenges that remain in
implementing an integrated employment and training system. To address
these objectives, we drew upon reports we issued between 2000 and 2007,
as well as our ongoing work for you on one-stop center
infrastructure.[Footnote 1] In our prior work on WIA, we have employed
an array of methodologies, including surveys of state and local
workforce officials and private sector employers; site visits to state
and local areas; interviews with local, state, and Labor officials; and
analysis of Labor's data and documents. Our new work on one-stop center
infrastructure is based primarily on an electronic survey of state
workforce officials in 50 states conducted between April and May 2007.
In addition to our survey, we conducted a literature review to identify
findings from other studies--including those sponsored by Labor--that
examined one-stop delivery systems. We conducted our work in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
In summary, the workforce system's infrastructure and service
strategies have evolved under WIA to meet the needs of employers and
job seekers, but congressional action could further the system's
development. While the number of comprehensive one-stop centers has
decreased somewhat over the past six years, states generally reported
increased availability of services for some of the mandatory programs
at comprehensive one-stop centers. Adults and dislocated workers
receive a wide range of services through the one-stop system, but
states and local areas have generally focused their youth services on
in-school youth, finding it difficult to recruit and retain out-of-
school youth. Most medium and large employers are aware of and use the
system and are quite satisfied with its services, but they generally
use one-stop centers to fill their needs for low-skilled workers.
Despite the progress states and local areas have made in developing the
system, key aspects of the program could be improved. Funding issues
continue to hamper the system, in part because WIA's Dislocated Worker
funding formula causes wide fluctuations in funding levels from year to
year that do not reflect actual layoff activity. In addition, Labor's
focus on expenditures without including obligations overestimates the
amount of funds available to provide services at the local level.
Moreover, little is known about what the system is achieving because
only a small minority of participants are captured in the performance
measures and Labor has not conducted an impact study to assess the
effectiveness of the one-stop system, as required under WIA. Labor has
taken some steps to improve guidance and communication, but has not
involved key stakeholders in the development of some of its major
initiatives and provided too little time for states and local areas to
implement them.
Background:
The Workforce Investment Act created a new, comprehensive workforce
investment system designed to change the way employment and training
services are delivered. When WIA was enacted in 1998, it replaced the
Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) with three new programs--Adult,
Dislocated Worker, and Youth--that allow for a broader range of
services to the general public, no longer using income to determine
eligibility for all program services. These new programs no longer
focused exclusively on training, but provided for three tiers, or
levels, of service for adults and dislocated workers: core, intensive,
and training. Core services include basic services such as job searches
and labor market information. These activities may be self-service or
require some staff assistance. Intensive services include such
activities as comprehensive assessment and case management, as well as
classes in literacy, conflict resolution, work skills, and those
leading to general equivalency diploma (GED)--activities that require
greater staff involvement. Training services include such activities as
occupational skills or on-the-job training. These tiers of WIA-funded
services are provided sequentially. That is, in order to receive
intensive services, job seekers must first demonstrate that core
services alone will not lead to getting a job that will provide self-
sufficiency. Similarly, to receive training services, a job seeker must
show that core and intensive services will not lead to such a job.
Unlike prior systems, WIA requires that individuals eligible for
training under the Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs receive
vouchers--called Individual Training Accounts--which they can use for
the training provider and course offering of their choice, within
certain limitations.
In addition to establishing the three new programs, WIA requires that
services for these programs, along with those of a number of other
employment and training programs, be provided through a single service
delivery system--the one-stop system. States were required to implement
these changes by July 1, 2000. Sixteen categories of programs from four
separate federal agencies must provide services through the system.
(See table 1.)
Table 1: WIA's Mandatory Programs and Related Federal Agencies:
Federal agency: Department of Labor;
Mandatory program:
WIA Adult.
WIA Dislocated Worker.
WIA Youth.
Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser).
Trade adjustment assistance programs.
Veterans' employment and training programs.
Unemployment Insurance.
Job Corps.
Senior Community Service Employment Program.
Employment and training for migrant and seasonal farm workers.
Employment and training for Native Americans.
Federal agency: Department of Education;
Mandatory program:
Vocational Rehabilitation Program.
Adult Education and Literacy.
Vocational Education (Perkins Act).
Federal agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Mandatory program: Community Services Block Grant.
Federal agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Mandatory program: HUD-administered employment and training.
Source: GAO-03-589 and Labor.
Note: Although WIA required 17 mandatory programs to participate in the
one-stop system, the Welfare-to-Work program no longer exists, reducing
the total to 16 mandatory programs.
[End of table]
Each local area must have at least one comprehensive one-stop center
where core services for all mandatory programs are accessible. WIA
allows flexibility in the way these mandatory partners provide services
through the one-stop system, allowing colocation, electronic linkages,
or referrals to off-site partner programs. While WIA requires these
mandatory partners to participate, it does not provide additional funds
to operate one-stop systems and support one-stop partnerships. As a
result, mandatory partners are expected to share the costs of
developing and operating one-stop centers. In addition to mandatory
partners, one-stop centers have the flexibility to include other
partners in the one-stop system to better meet specific state and local
workforce development needs. Services may also be provided at
affiliated sites, defined as designated locations that provide access
to at least one employment and training program.
About $3.3 billion was appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for the three
WIA programs--Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth. The formulas for
distributing these funds to the states were left largely unchanged from
those used to distribute funds under the predecessor program, JTPA, and
are based on such factors as unemployment rates and the relative number
of low-income adults and youth in the population. In order to receive
their full funding allocations, states must report on the performance
of their three WIA programs. WIA requires that performance measures
gauge program results in the areas of job placement, retention,
earnings, skill attainment and customer satisfaction, largely through
the use of Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records.[Footnote 2]
Labor's guidance requires that job seekers be tracked for outcomes when
they begin receiving core services that require significant staff
assistance. States are held accountable by Labor for their performance
and may receive incentive funds or suffer financial sanctions based on
whether they meet performance levels. WIA requires states to negotiate
with Labor to establish expected performance levels for each measure.
While WIA established performance measures for the three WIA-funded
programs, it did not establish any comprehensive measures to assess the
overall performance of the one-stop system.
System Infrastructure and Service Strategies Have Evolved To Meet the
Needs of Job Seekers and Employers:
Seven years after the implementation of the workforce investment system
under WIA, the system's infrastructure continues to evolve. Nationwide,
the number of comprehensive one-stop centers has decreased somewhat,
but not uniformly across states. States generally reported increased
availability of services for some of the mandatory programs at
comprehensive one-stop centers. But despite WIA's requirement that all
mandatory partners provide services through the one-stop system, some
states have maintained a completely separate system for delivering
services for Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Services (ES). Adults and
dislocated workers receive a wide range of services through the one-
stop system, but states and local areas have generally focused their
youth services on in-school youth, finding it difficult to recruit and
retain out-of-school youth. Most medium and large employers are aware
of and use the system and are quite satisfied with its services, but
they generally use one-stop centers to fill their needs for low-skilled
workers.
WIA's Service Delivery Infrastructure Continues to Evolve:
WIA's service delivery infrastructure has continued to evolve since we
last reviewed it in 2001. Over the 6-year period, nationwide, the
number of one-stop centers--both comprehensive and satellite--has
declined, a fact that states most often attributed to a decrease in
funding. The number of comprehensive centers declined from a high of
1,756 in 2001 to 1,637 in 2007. However, this trend is not uniform
across states. Ten states reported an increase in comprehensive centers
over the last 4 years. For example, Montana reported a 600 percent
increase in centers as part of a statewide restructuring of its one-
stop delivery system that involved converting former satellite and
affiliated sites into comprehensive one-stop centers. States that
reported an increase in the number of comprehensive one-stop centers
often cited a rise in demand for services as the reason for the
increase.
Services for mandatory programs are increasingly available through the
one-stop system in 2007, though not always on-site. States continue to
have services for two key programs--WIA Adult and Dislocated Workers--
available on-site at the majority of the one-stop centers. In addition,
30 states reported that TANF services were generally available on-site
at a typical comprehensive one-stop center, and 3 more states reported
they were typically on-site at satellites. The on-site availability of
some other programs--such as, Job Corps, Migrant and Seasonal
Farmworkers, Senior Community Service and Employment Program, and Adult
Education and Literacy--declined slightly between 2001 and 2007.
However, the overall availability of these programs' services
increased, largely because of substantial increases in access through
electronic linkages and referrals.
Despite the increased availability of some programs at one-stop
centers, some states have not fully integrated all of their Wagner-
Peyser-funded Employment Service into the system. Six states reported
in our 2007 survey that they operate stand-alone Employment Service
offices, all completely outside the one-stop system. Another four
states reported having at least some stand-alone offices outside the
system (see fig. 1). At the same time, states that operate stand-alone
offices also report providing services on-site at the majority of their
one-stops. Labor has expressed concern that stand-alone Employment
Service offices cause confusion for individuals and employers and
promote duplication of effort and inefficient use of resources. Given
the concern over resources, we asked states to provide estimates of
their state's total Employment Service allotment that was used to
support the infrastructure of the stand-alone offices. Only 6 states
could provide them, and the overall average was about 5 percent.
However, the state with the most stand-alone ES offices reported that
it had not used any of its ES allotment to support the infrastructure
of these offices. Instead, this state financed the infrastructure costs
of its 30 stand-alone offices with state general funds. Despite their
concerns, Labor officials say that they lack the authority to prohibit
stand-alone ES offices.
Figure 1: In 2007, 18 States Have Stand-alone ES Offices, Six States
Operate Them Completely Outside the System:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey of 50 states.
[End of figure]
While most states used multiple program funds to finance the operation
of their one-stops, WIA and ES continue to be the two programs most
often cited as funding sources used to cover one-stop infrastructure--
or nonpersonnel--costs. In program year 2005, the most recent year for
which data are available, 23 states reported that WIA was the top
funding source used to support infrastructure, while 19 states
identified the Employment Service. Of the eight states remaining, three
cited TANF as the top funding source, two cited Unemployment Insurance,
one cited WIA state funds, and two states could not provide this
information. States reported less reliance on other programs to fund
the one-stop infrastructure in 2005 than in the past (see table 2). For
example, the number of states that reported using TANF funds at all to
cover infrastructure costs declined from 36 to 27.
Table 2: Programs Funding One-Stop Center Infrastructure Costs:
Labor.
Program: WIA Title I/JTPA;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2000: 50;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2001: 50;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year
2005: 50.
Program: ES (Wagner-Peyser);
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2000: 49;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2001: 50;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year
2005: 50.
Program: Veterans' Employment and Training program;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2000: 43;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2001: 43;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year
2005: 41.
Program: NAFTA and Trade/Trade Adjustment Assistance;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2000: 39;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2001: 41;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year
2005: 30.
Program: Unemployment Insurance;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2000: 39;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2001: 39;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year
2005: 34.
Program: Welfare-to-Work grants;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2000: 39;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2001: 38;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year
2005: N/A.
Program: One-stop implementation grants;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2000: 37;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2001: N/A;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year
2005: N/A.
Program: Job Corps;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2000: 20;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2001: 24;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year
2005: 11.
Education.
Program: Vocational rehabilitation;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2000: 37;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2001: 37;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year
2005: 24.
Program: Adult education and literacy;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2000: 29;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2001: 29;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year
2005: 15.
Program: Vocational education;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2000: 24;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2001: 19;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year
2005: N/A.
Other.
Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2000: 33;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2001: 36;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year
2005: 27.
Program: Community colleges;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2000: N/A;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2001: N/A;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year
2005: 11.
Program: State funds;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2000: N/A;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year
2001: 31;
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year
2005: 24.
Source: Based on GAO surveys conducted in 2000, 2001, and 2007.
N/A = not applicable.
[End of table]
States and Local Areas Have Sought to Tailor Services to Meet the Needs
of Customers:
WIA provides the flexibility to states and local areas to develop
approaches for serving job seekers and employers that best meet local
needs. In our work we have found some broad trends in services, but
there continues to be wide variation across the country in the mix of
services and how they are provided. Local areas use a substantial
portion of their WIA funds to provide training to adults and dislocated
workers, but use even more to provide the services that go beyond
training, including case management, assessment, and supportive
services. However, serving youth, particularly out-of-school youth, has
proven challenging. WIA increased the focus on the employer as
customer, and we found that most medium and large employers are aware
of and use the one-stop. However, employers look to the one-stop system
mostly to help fill their needs for low-skilled workers, in part
because they assume that most workers available through the system are
low-skilled.
Services to adults and dislocated workers involve more than training.
Despite early concerns about the extent of training, we found that
substantial WIA funds were being used to fund training. Local boards
used about 40 percent of the approximately $2.4 billion in WIA funds
they had available in program year 2003 to provide training services to
an estimated 416,000 WIA participants, primarily in occupational
skills.[Footnote 3] However, the vast majority of job seekers receive
self-assisted core services, not training. Not everyone needs or wants
additional training. And even when they do, they need help deciding
what type of training would best match their skill level while at the
same time meet local labor market needs--help that includes information
on job openings, comprehensive assessments, individual counseling, and
supportive services, such as transportation and child care. Of the
funds available in program year 2003, 60 percent was used to pay for
these other program costs, as well as to cover the cost of
administering the program.[Footnote 4]
Providing services to youth has been challenging for local areas. Local
areas often focus their WIA youth resources on serving in-school youth,
often using a range of approaches to prevent academic failure and
school dropouts. Out-of-school youth are viewed as difficult to serve,
in part because they are difficult to locate in the community and they
face particularly difficult barriers to employment and education,
including low levels of academic attainment, limited work experience,
and a scarcity of jobs in the community. The 5-year Youth Opportunity
Grants program, authorized under WIA was designed, in part, to enhance
the local infrastructure of youth services, particularly in high-
poverty areas. Grantees offered participants a range of youth services-
-education, occupational skills training, leadership development, and
support services. They set up centers that varied widely. To reach the
hard-to-serve target population, grantees used a variety of recruiting
techniques, ranging from the conventional to the innovative. For
example, some grantees conducted community walking campaigns using
staff to saturate shopping malls and other areas where youth
congregate. Conditions in the communities such as violence and lack of
jobs presented a challenge to most grantees, but they took advantage of
the local discretion built into the program to develop strategies to
address them. Grantees and others reported that the participants and
their communities made progress toward the education and employment
goals of the program. However, a formal assessment of the program's
impact, while under way, has not yet been released by Labor. Although
Labor originally planned to continue to add grantees, funding for the
program was eliminated in the budget for fiscal year 2004.[Footnote 5]
Employers mostly use one-stop centers to fill their needs for low-
skilled workers. Most medium and large employers are aware of and use
the system and are satisfied with its services (see fig 2). Regardless
of size, just over 70 percent of employers responding to our 2006
survey reported that they hired a small percentage of their employees-
-about 9 percent--through one-stops. Two-thirds of those they hired
were low-skilled workers, in part because they thought the labor
available from the one-stops was mostly low-skilled. Employers told us
they would hire more job seekers from the one-stop labor pools if the
job seekers had the skills for which they were looking. Most employers
used the centers' job posting service, fewer made use of the one-stops'
physical space or job applicant screening services. Still, when
employers did take advantage of services, they generally reported that
they were satisfied with the services and found them useful because
they produced positive results and saved them time and money. When
employers did not use a particular one-stop service, in most cases they
said that they either were not aware that the one-stop provided the
service, or said they obtained it elsewhere, or said that they carried
through on their own.[Footnote 6]
Figure 2: Percentage of Business Establishments Aware of, Using, and
Satisfied with One-Stops:
[see PDF for Image]
Source: GAO 2004 survey of private sector business establishments in
the United States.
[End of figure]
Additional Action Could Help System Development:
Despite the successes state and local officials have had since WIA's
implementation, some aspects of the law and other factors have hampered
their efforts. First, funding issues continue to stymie the system. For
example, the formulas in WIA that are used to allocate funds to states
do not reflect current program design and have caused wide fluctuations
in funding levels from year to year. In addition, Labor's focus on
expenditures without including obligations overestimates the amount of
funds available to provide services at the local level. Second, the
performance measurement system is flawed and little is known about what
WIA has achieved. Labor has taken some steps to improve guidance and
communication, but does not involve key stakeholders in the development
of some major initiatives and provides too little time for states and
local areas to implement them.
Funding Allocation and Spending Information Do Not Reflect Program
Structure:
As states and localities have implemented WIA, they have been hampered
by funding issues, including statutory funding formulas that are
flawed. As a result, states' funding levels may not always be
consistent with the actual demand for services. In previous work, we
identified several issues associated with the current funding
formulas.[Footnote 7] First, formula factors used to allocate funds are
not aligned with the target populations for these programs.[Footnote 8]
Second, allocations may not reflect current labor market conditions
because there are time lags between when the data are collected and
when the allocations become available to states. Third, the formula for
the Dislocated Worker program is especially problematic, because it
causes funding levels to suffer from excessive and unwarranted
volatility unrelated to a state's actual layoff activity. Several
aspects of the Dislocated Worker formula contribute to funding
volatility and to the seeming lack of consistency between dislocation
and funding. The excess unemployment factor has a threshold effect--
states may or may not qualify for the one-third of funds allocated
under this factor in a given year, based on whether or not they meet
the threshold condition of having at least 4.5 percent unemployment
statewide. In a study we conducted in 2003, we compared dislocation
activity and funding levels for several states. In one example, funding
decreased in one year while dislocation activity increased by over 40
percent (see fig. 3). This volatility could be mitigated by provisions
such as "hold harmless" and "stop gain" constraints that limit changes
in funding to within a particular range of each state's prior year
allocation. The Adult formula includes such constraints, setting the
hold harmless at 90 percent and the stop gain at 130 percent.[Footnote
9]
Figure 3: An Example of the Mismatch between Dislocated Worker Funding
Allocation and Dislocation Activity--Massachusetts:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics and
Employment and Training Administration.
[End of figure]
In addition to issues related to funding allocation, the process used
to determine states' available funds considers only expenditures and
does not take into account the role of obligations in the current
program structure. Our analysis of Labor's data from program year 2003
and beyond indicates that states are spending their WIA funds within
the authorized 3-year period. Nationwide, states spent over 66 percent
of their program year 2003 WIA funds in the first year--an increase
from the 55 percent since our 2002 report. In fact, almost all program
funds allocated in program year 2003 were spent by states within 2
years. By contrast, Labor's estimate of expenditure rates suggests that
states are not spending their funds as quickly because the estimate is
based on all funds states currently have available--from older funds
carried in from prior program years to those only recently distributed.
Moreover, many of the remaining funds carried over may have already
been obligated--or committed through contracts for goods and services
for which a payment has not yet been made. When we examined recent
national data on the amount of WIA funds states are carrying in from
previous program years, we found that, overall, the amount of carryover
funds is decreasing--from $1.4 billion into program year 2003 to $1.1
billion into program year 2005. One explanation for the decline may be
that obligations are being converted to expenditures.
In our 2002 report, we also noted that Labor's data lacked consistent
information on obligations because states were not all using the same
definition for obligations in what they reported to Labor. Labor's
guidance was unclear and did not specify whether obligations made at
the local level--the point at which services are delivered--should be
included. We recommended that Labor clarify the guidance to standardize
the reporting of obligations and use this guidance when estimating
states' available funds. Labor issued revised guidance in 2002, but
continues to rely on expenditure data in establishing its estimates. In
so doing, it overestimates the funds states have available to spend and
ignores the role of obligations in the current workforce investment
system. Labor's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recently
concurred, noting that obligations provide a more useful measure for
assessing states' WIA funding status if obligations accurately reflect
legally committed funds and are consistently reported.[Footnote 10]
Little Is Known about What the System Is Achieving:
We have little information at a national level about what the workforce
investment system under WIA achieves. Outcome data do not provide a
complete picture of WIA services. The data reflect only a small portion
of those who receive WIA services and contain no information on
services to employers. Furthermore, WIA performance data are not
comparable across states and localities, in part because of
inconsistent policies in tracking participants for outcomes. In
addition, the use of wage records to calculate outcomes is no longer
consistent across states. Labor and states have made progress in
measuring WIA performance in a number of areas, including Labor's data
validation initiative and the move to common measures. Labor's proposed
integrated data system holds promise in improving data reporting, but
it is unclear whether it will be implemented as currently proposed.
Furthermore, Labor has not yet conducted an impact evaluation, as
required by WIA.
WIA performance data do not include information on all customers
receiving services. Currently Labor has only limited information on
certain job seekers--those who use only self-services--and on
employers. WIA excludes job seekers who receive core services that are
self-service or informational in nature from being included in the
performance information. Thus, only a small proportion of the job
seeker population who receive services at one-stops are actually
reflected in WIA outcome data, making it difficult to know what the
overall program is achieving. Customers who use self-services are
estimated to be the largest portion of those served under WIA. In a
2004 study, we reported that some estimates show only about 5.5 percent
of the individuals who walked into a one-stop were actually registered
for WIA and tracked for outcomes. Furthermore, Labor has limited
information about employer involvement in the one-stop system. Although
Labor measures employers' satisfaction, this measure does not provide
information on how employers use the system. Labor officials told us
that they do not rely on this information for any purpose, and the
information is too general for states and local areas to use.
WIA performance data are not comparable across states and localities.
Because not all job seekers are included in WIA's outcome measures,
states and local areas must decide when to begin tracking participants
for outcomes--a decision that has led to outcome data that are not
comparable across states and local areas. The guidance available to
states at the time WIA was first implemented was open to interpretation
in some key areas. For example, the guidance told states to register
and track for outcomes all adults and dislocated workers who receive
core services that require significant staff assistance, but states
could decide what constituted significant staff assistance. As a
result, states and local areas have differed on whom they track and for
how long--sometimes beginning the process when participants receive
core services, and at other times not until they receive more intensive
services. We have recommended that Labor determine a standard point of
registration and monitor states to ensure they comply. Labor has taken
some actions, but registration remains an issue.[Footnote 11]
Furthermore, data are not comparable because the availability of wage
records to calculate outcomes is no longer consistent across states. UI
wage records--the primary data source for tracking WIA performance--
provide a fairly consistent national view of WIA performance. At the
same time, UI wage records cannot be readily used to track job seekers
who get jobs in other states unless states share data. The Wage Record
Interchange System (WRIS) was developed to allow states to share UI
wage records and account for job seekers who participate in one state's
employment programs but get jobs in another state. In recent years, all
states but one participated in WRIS while it was operated by the
nonprofit National Association of State Workforce Agencies. However, in
July 2006, Labor assumed responsibility for administering WRIS, and
many states have withdrawn, in part because of a perceived conflict of
interest between Labor's role in enforcing federal law and the states'
role in protecting the confidentiality of their data. As of March 2007,
only 30 states were participating in the program, and it is unknown if
and when the other states will enter the data-sharing agreement. As a
result, performance information in almost half the states may not
include employment outcomes for job seekers who found jobs outside the
states in which they received services.[Footnote 12]
Labor has taken steps to address issues related to the quality of WIA
performance data, but further action is needed. Both Labor's OIG and
our early studies of WIA raised issues on the quality of the
performance data, and Labor has taken steps aimed at addressing these
issues. In October 2004, Labor began requiring states to implement new
data validation procedures for WIA performance data. This process
requires states to conduct two types of validation: (1) data element
validation--reviewing samples of WIA participant files, and (2) report
validation--assessing whether states' software accurately calculated
performance outcomes. While it is too soon to fully assess whether
Labor's efforts have improved data quality, officials in most states
have reported that Labor's new requirements have helped increase
awareness of data accuracy and reliability at both the state and local
levels.[Footnote 13]
In addition, in 2005, in response to an Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) initiative, Labor began requiring states to implement a common
set of performance measures for its employment and training programs,
including WIA.[Footnote 14] These measures include an entered
employment rate, an employment retention rate, and an average earnings
measure. Moving to the common measures has increased the comparability
of outcome information across programs and made it easier for states
and local areas to collect and report performance information across
the full range of programs that provide services in the one-stop
system. In addition, as part of the implementation of the common
measures, states are for the first time required to collect and report
a count of all WIA participants who use one-stop centers. This may help
provide a more complete picture of the one-stop system.[Footnote 15]
The shift to common measures could also affect services to some groups
of job seekers. Historically, certain WIA performance measures--
primarily the earnings measure--have driven localities to serve only
those customers who will help meet performance levels. For example,
program providers have reported that the earnings measure provides a
disincentive to enroll older workers in the program because of
employment characteristics that may negatively affect program
performance. In several local areas we visited for our study of older
worker services, officials said they considered performance measures a
barrier to enrolling older workers seeking part-time jobs because they
would have lower earnings and therefore reduce measured program
performance. Labor's shift from earnings gain to average earnings under
the common measures may help reduce the extent to which the measures
are a disincentive to serve certain populations. It remains unclear,
however, how the new measure will affect the delivery of services to
some groups, such as older workers, who are more likely to work part-
time and have lower overall wages. Further action may be needed to help
reduce the incentive to serve only those who will help meet performance
levels. One approach that could help would be to systematically adjust
expected performance levels to account for different populations and
local economic conditions when negotiating performance. We have made
such a recommendation to Labor, but little action has been
taken.[Footnote 16]
The Workforce Investment Streamlined Performance Reporting System
(WISPR). Since 2004, Labor has been planning to implement an integrated
data-reporting system that could greatly enhance the understanding of
job seeker services and outcomes. WISPR represents a promising step
forward in integrating and expanding program reporting, but it is
unclear whether implementation will occur as proposed. If implemented,
the system would integrate data reporting by using standardized
reporting requirements across the Employment Service, WIA, veterans'
state grant, and Trade Adjustment Assistance programs, and ultimately
replace their existing reporting systems with a single reporting
structure. Its integrated design would, for the first time, allow Labor
and states to track an individual's progress through the one-stop
system. In addition, the system would expand data collection and
reporting in two key areas: the services provided to employers and
estimates of the number of people who access the one-stop system but
ultimately receive limited or no services from one-stop staff. On the
basis of our preliminary review, WISPR appears to address many of the
issues we've raised regarding the system's current performance data.
However, concerns have been raised about challenges in implementing the
new system, and at present, the timeline for WISPR's implementation
remains unclear. Given the rapidly approaching July 1, 2007,
implementation date, it appears likely that implementation will be
delayed.[Footnote 17]
No information exists on what works and for whom. Although Labor has
improved its outcome data on job seekers who participate in its
programs, these data alone cannot measure whether outcomes are a direct
result of program participation, rather than external factors. For
example, local labor market conditions may affect an individual's
ability to find a job as much as or more than participation in an
employment and training program. To measure the effects of a program,
it is necessary to conduct an impact evaluation that would seek to
assess whether the program itself led to participant outcomes. Since
the full implementation of WIA in 2000--in which the one-stop system
became the required means to provide most employment and training
services--Labor has not made evaluating the impact of those services a
research priority. While WIA required such an evaluation by 2005, Labor
has declined to fund one in prior budgets. In 2004, we recommended that
Labor comply with the requirements of WIA and conduct an impact
evaluation of WIA services to better understand what services are most
effective for improving outcomes.[Footnote 18] In response, Labor cited
the need for program stability and proposed delaying an impact
evaluation of WIA until after reauthorization. In its 2008 budget
proposal, Labor identified an assessment of WIA's impact on employment,
retention, and earnings outcomes for participants as an effort the
agency would begin. As of May 2007, according to Labor officials, the
agency had not yet begun to design the study.[Footnote 19]
Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches to Implement New
Initiatives:
Labor has implemented some initiatives, such as national performance
and reporting summits, to better communicate with states on changes in
processes and procedures. However, guidance on policy changes has often
come too late for states to be able to implement them. For example, in
implementing common measures, states had very little time to make the
necessary changes before they had to begin data collection and
reporting using the new requirements. While Labor publicized its plans
to adopt the common measures, states were notified only in late
February 2005 that Labor planned to implement changes on July 1, 2005,
and final guidance was not issued until April 15, 2005. This gave
states 3 months or less to interpret federal guidance, coordinate with
partners, modify information technology systems, issue new guidance,
and train local area staff. In our 2005 report, we commented that
rushed implementation could negatively affect data quality and
compromise the potential benefits of the proposed changes.[Footnote 20]
In addition to underestimating the cost, time, and effort required of
states to make such changes, Labor has failed to solicit adequate
stakeholder input when introducing some major new initiatives. For
example, Labor's efforts to implement an integrated reporting system
have been hampered by a lack of stakeholder input. In 2004, Labor first
proposed a single, streamlined reporting system, known as the ETA
Management Information and Longitudinal Evaluation system (EMILE) that
would have replaced reporting systems for several Labor programs. While
many states supported streamlined reporting, 36 states indicated that
implementing the EMILE system, as proposed, would be very burdensome.
Labor developed the system with only limited consultation with key
stakeholders, including state officials, and as a result underestimated
the magnitude and type of changes EMILE would require and the resources
states would need in order to implement it. In response, Labor
substantially modified this system's design. The modified system, now
called WISPR, was set to be implemented on July 1, 2007. As with EMILE,
however, concerns have been raised about challenges in implementing the
new system, particularly the early implementation date. Some comments
to OMB expressed the view that Labor had again underestimated the time
states would need to revise policy, reprogram systems, and retrain
staff. Given the rapidly approaching deadline and states' readiness to
implement this system, it seems that this important initiative will
likely be delayed again. In 2005, we recommended that Labor consider
alternative approaches that involve ongoing consultation with key
stakeholders as the agency seeks to implement its new initiatives.
Concluding Observations:
In the 7 years since most states fully implemented WIA, much progress
has been made in developing and implementing a universal system. With
notable exceptions, services for partner programs are becoming
increasingly available through the one-stop system. States and local
areas have used the flexibility under WIA to tailor services for where
they are and for whom they serve. As the Congress moves toward
reauthorizing WIA, consideration should be given to maintaining that
state and local flexibility, whereby innovation and system ownership
can be fostered. However, some aspects of WIA could be improved through
legislative action. Our findings highlight two key areas:
* Improving the data on people who use the system: Requiring all job
seekers who receive WIA funded services to be included in the
performance management system would improve understanding of who gets
served and eliminate the ambiguity about who should be tracked and for
how long.
* Improving funding stability: If Congress chooses not to make broader
funding formula changes, reducing the volatility in the Dislocated
Worker allocation by requiring the use of hold harmless and stop gain
provisions in the formula would help stabilize funding and better
foster sound financial practices.
Furthermore, we have made a number of recommendations to Labor to
improve aspects of the current program. While Labor has implemented
many of them, several key concerns remain unaddressed. Labor has not
taken steps to:
* more accurately estimate states' available fund by considering
obligations as well as expenditures,
* establish suitable performance levels for states to achieve by
developing and implementing a systematic approach for adjusting
expected performance to account for different populations and local
economic conditions,
* maximize the likelihood that new initiatives will be adopted in an
achievable time frame by using a collaborative approach that engages
all key stakeholders, and:
* improve policymakers' understanding of what employment and training
programs achieve by conducting important program evaluations, including
an impact study on WIA, and releasing those findings in a timely way.
In absence of actions by Labor on these issues, the Congress may wish
to address them legislatively.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other members of the committee may have
at this time.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
For information regarding this testimony, please contact Sigurd R.
Nilsen, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, at
(202) 512-7215. Individuals who made key contributions to this
testimony include Dianne Blank, Rebecca Woiwode, and Thomas McCabe.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve
Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program Impact. GAO-
07-594. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2007.
Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in
Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help Gauge
Employer Involvement. GAO-07-167. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2006.
National Emergency Grants: Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award
Timeliness and Data Collection, but Further Steps Can Improve Process.
GAO-06-870. Washington, D.C.: September 5, 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.
Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but
Labor Needs to Make Data Available. GAO-06-53. Washington, D.C.:
December 9, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to
Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. GAO-06-82.
Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but
Little Is Known 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.
Workforce Investment Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied
with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address
Employers' Needs. GAO-05-259. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate
Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts
May Not Be Sufficient. GAO-05-54. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed
Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO-
04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.
National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve
Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant
Awards and Improve Data. GAO-04-496. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve Quality
of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. GAO-04-308.
Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004.
Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Worker Training and
Employment through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with Federally
Funded Programs. GAO-04-282. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on
State Allocations. GAO-03-1043. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to
Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization. GAO-03-
884T. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information
Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for
Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO-03-636. Washington, D.C.:
April 25, 2003.
Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs,
but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers.
GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003.
Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other
Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: States' Spending Is on Track, but Better
Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting. GAO-03-239. Washington,
D.C.: November 22, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate
Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective
Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service
Strategies, but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development.
GAO-02-413. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula
Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274. Washington, D.C.:
February 11, 2002.
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.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns
over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2001. Also
testimony GAO-02-94T.
Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of
TANF Services. GAO/T-HEHS-00-145. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000.
FOOTNOTES
[1] In particular, see GAO, Veterans' Employment and Training Service:
Labor Could Improve Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and
Program Impact, GAO-07-594 (Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2007); Workforce
Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in Hiring Low-
Skilled Workers, GAO-07-167 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 22, 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.: Nov. 14, 2005); Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons
Can Be Learned from Program, but Labor Needs to Make Data Available,
GAO-06-53, (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2005); Workforce Investment Act:
Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but Little Is Known about
Training Outcomes, GAO-05-650, (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005);
Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for
Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers, GAO-03-636, (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 25, 2003); Workforce Investment Act: States' Spending Is on Track,
but Better Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting, GAO-03-239,
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002); and Workforce Investment Act:
Implementation Status and the Integration of TANF Services. GAO/T-HEHS-
00-145. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000.
[2] In some cases, supplemental data sources may be used when UI data
are not available. Supplemental data may not be used for the earnings
measure.
[3] Our estimate may include some participants more than once, because
some individuals may have received more than one type of training.
[4] For more information, see GAO-05-650.
[5] For more information see GAO, Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can
Be Learned from Program, but Labor Needs to Make Data Available, GAO-
06-53, (Washington, D.C.: December 9, 2005), and Workforce Investment
Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve Quality of Performance
Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services, GAO-04-308, (Washington,
D.C.: February 23, 2004).
[6] For more information, see GAO-07-167 and GAO, Workforce Investment
Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied with One-Stop
Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address Employers'
Needs, GAO-05-259, (Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2005).
[7] See GAO-03-636 and GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects
of Alternative Formulas on State Allocations, GAO-03-1043, (Washington,
D.C.: August 28, 2003).
[8] The formulas for distributing these funds to the states were left
largely unchanged from those used to distribute funds under JTPA.
[9] For more information, see GAO-03-636.
[10] For more information, see U.S. Department of Labor, Office of
Inspector General, Semi-Annual Report to Congress, Volume 57 (October
1, 2006-March 31, 2007), and GAO-03-239.
[11] See GAO-06-82.
[12] For more information, see GAO-07-594.
[13] See GAO-06-82.
[14] OMB established a set of common measures to be applied to most
federally funded job training programs that share similar goals.
[15] See GAO-06-82.
[16] For more information, see GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States
and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but
Labor Could Do More to Help, GAO-04-657, (Washington, D.C.: June 1,
2004).
[17] For more information, see GAO-07-594.
[18] See GAO-04-657.
[19] See GAO-07-594.
[20] For more information, see GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Labor
Should Consider Alternative Approaches to Implement New Performance and
Reporting Requirements, GAO-05-539, (Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
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:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
