Employment and Training Program Grants
Evaluating Impact and Enhancing Monitoring Would Improve Accountability Gao ID: GAO-08-486 May 7, 2008Since 2001, Labor has spent nearly $900 million on three workforce employment and training grant initiatives: High Growth Job Training Initiative (High Growth), Community-Based Job Training Initiative (Community Based), and the Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED). GAO was asked to examine (1) the intent of the grant initiatives and the extent to which Labor will be able to assess their effects, (2) the extent to which the process used competition, was adequately documented, and included key players, and (3) what Labor is doing to monitor individual grantee compliance with grant requirements. To answer these questions, GAO obtained from Labor a list of grants for fiscal years 2001 through 2007, and reviewed relevant laws and Labor's internal grant award procedures. GAO interviewed grantees, and state and local workforce officials in seven states where grantees were located, Labor officials, and subject matter experts.
According to Labor officials, the grant initiatives were designed to shift the focus of the public workforce system toward the training and employment needs of high-growth, in-demand industries, but Labor will be challenged to assess their impact. Under the initiatives, Labor awarded 349 grants totaling almost $900 million to foster this change. However, the grant initiatives were not fully integrated into Labor's strategic plan or overall research agenda; therefore, it is unclear what criteria Labor will use to evaluate their effectiveness. Labor lacks data that will allow it to compare outcomes for grant-funded services to those of other federally funded employment and training services. While grants under all three initiatives are now awarded competitively, the initial noncompetitive process for High Growth grants was not adequately documented and did not include key players. Community Based and WIRED grants have always been awarded competitively, but more than 80 percent of High Growth grants were awarded without competition. Labor began awarding some High Growth grants competitively in 2005 and Congress required Labor to award certain grants competitively in fiscal years 2007 and 2008. This requirement applies only to those years. Labor could not document criteria used to select the noncompetitive High Growth grants or whether these grants met internal or statutory requirements. Labor has taken steps to strengthen the noncompetitive process, but these procedures do not explicitly require documentation of compliance with statutory program requirements. Labor's process for identifying solutions for industry workforce challenges did not include the vast majority of local workforce investment boards, which oversee local employment and training services. Labor provides some monitoring for grantees under all three initiatives and uses a risk-based monitoring approach for the High Growth and Community Based grants, but not for WIRED. Labor has a process to address findings from single audit reports, but its inspector general found problems with Labor's follow up on the completion of these audits for its grantees in general and recommended that Labor put procedures in place to do so. Labor provides technical assistance for the three initiatives and spent $16 million on contracts to help offer this support.
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-08-486, Employment and Training Program Grants: Evaluating Impact and Enhancing Monitoring Would Improve Accountability
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-486
entitled 'Employment and Training Program Grants: Evaluating Impact and
Enhancing Monitoring Would Improve Accountability' which was released
on May 7, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
May 2008:
Employment and Training Program Grants:
Evaluating Impact and Enhancing Monitoring Would Improve
Accountability:
GAO-08-486:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-486, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Since 2001, Labor has spent nearly $900 million on three workforce
employment and training grant initiatives: High Growth Job Training
Initiative (High Growth), Community-Based Job Training Initiative
(Community Based), and the Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic
Development (WIRED). GAO was asked to examine (1) the intent of the
grant initiatives and the extent to which Labor will be able to assess
their effects, (2) the extent to which the process used competition,
was adequately documented, and included key players, and (3) what Labor
is doing to monitor individual grantee compliance with grant
requirements. To answer these questions, GAO obtained from Labor a list
of grants for fiscal years 2001 through 2007, and reviewed relevant
laws and Labor‘s internal grant award procedures. GAO interviewed
grantees, and state and local workforce officials in seven states where
grantees were located, Labor officials, and subject matter experts.
What GAO Found:
According to Labor officials, the grant initiatives were designed to
shift the focus of the public workforce system toward the training and
employment needs of high-growth, in-demand industries, but Labor will
be challenged to assess their impact. Under the initiatives, Labor
awarded 349 grants totaling almost $900 million to foster this change.
However, the grant initiatives were not fully integrated into Labor‘s
strategic plan or overall research agenda; therefore, it is unclear
what criteria Labor will use to evaluate their effectiveness. Labor
lacks data that will allow it to compare outcomes for grant-funded
services to those of other federally funded employment and training
services.
While grants under all three initiatives are now awarded competitively,
the initial noncompetitive process for High Growth grants was not
adequately documented and did not include key players. Community Based
and WIRED grants have always been awarded competitively, but more than
80 percent of High Growth grants were awarded without competition.
Labor began awarding some High Growth grants competitively in 2005 and
Congress required Labor to award certain grants competitively in fiscal
years 2007 and 2008. This requirement applies only to those years.
Labor could not document criteria used to select the noncompetitive
High Growth grants or whether these grants met internal or statutory
requirements. Labor has taken steps to strengthen the noncompetitive
process, but these procedures do not explicitly require documentation
of compliance with statutory program requirements. Labor‘s process for
identifying solutions for industry workforce challenges did not include
the vast majority of local workforce investment boards, which oversee
local employment and training services.
Labor provides some monitoring for grantees under all three initiatives
and uses a risk-based monitoring approach for the High Growth and
Community Based grants, but not for WIRED. Labor has a process to
address findings from single audit reports, but its inspector general
found problems with Labor‘s follow up on the completion of these audits
for its grantees in general and recommended that Labor put procedures
in place to do so. Labor provides technical assistance for the three
initiatives and spent $16 million on contracts to help offer this
support.
Table: Number of Grants and Funds Awarded Competitively and
Noncompetitively, Fiscal Years 2001-2007 (Dollars in millions):
Grant Initiative: High Growth;
Number of grants: 166;
Competitively awarded amount: $31.8;
Noncompetitively awarded amount: $263.8;
Totals by grant initiative: $295.6.
Grant Initiative: Community Based;
Number of grants: 142;
Competitively awarded amount: $250.0;
Noncompetitively awarded amount: 0;
Totals by grant initiative: $250.0.
Grant Initiative: WIRED;
Number of grants: 41;
Competitively awarded amount: $324.0;
Noncompetitively awarded amount: 0;
Totals by grant initiative: $324.0.
Grant Initiative: Total;
Number of grants: 349;
Competitively awarded amount: $605.8;
Noncompetitively awarded amount: $263.8;
Totals by grant initiative: $869.6.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data.
Note: Total dollar amount varies from Labor‘s reported figure due to
rounding.
[End of table]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that Labor take steps to ensure that it can evaluate the
initiatives‘ impact, documents compliance with statutory program
requirements for noncompetitive grant awards, and develops and
implements a risk-based monitoring approach for WIRED grants. Labor
said that it either had taken initial steps or planned to take steps to
address these issues. Because these efforts were either preliminary or
planned, GAO continues to stand by the recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-486]. For more
information, contact George Scott (202)512-7215 scottg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Grants Are Intended to Change the Workforce System, but Labor Will Be
Challenged to Evaluate Their Impact:
The Initial Noncompetitive Process Was Not Adequately Documented and
Did Not Include Key Players:
Labor Uses a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach for High Growth and
Community Based Grants but Not for WIRED Grants:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: High Growth, Community Based, and WIRED Grantees through
September 30, 2007, by Initiative and State:
Appendix III: Department of Labor Technical Assistance Contracts:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Total Number and Amount of Grants Awarded by Labor, 2001-2007:
Table 2: The Number of High Growth Grants and Funds Awarded
Competitively and Noncompetitively between Fiscal Years 2001 and 2007:
Table 3: Industry Sector Solutions Forums and the Number of
Participants:
Table 4 Status of Risk-Based Monitored Grants as of September 30, 2007:
Table 5: High Growth Grantees:
Table 6: Community Based Grantees:
Table 7: WIRED Grantees:
Table 8: Department of Labor Technical Assistance Contracts Related to
High Growth, Community Based and WIRED Grant Initiatives:
Figure:
Figure 1: Number of Workforce Investment Boards and States with
Participants at Solutions Forums:
Abbreviations:
ACWIA: American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act:
ETA: Employment and Training Administration:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
WIRED: Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 7, 2008:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy:
Chairman:
The Honorable Michael B. Enzi:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and
Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Patty Murray:
Chair:
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
Federally funded training and employment services are delivered through
what is known as the one-stop system, which was developed under the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 and is governed by state and
local workforce investment boards. Sixteen categories of programs,
funded by four federal agencies, deliver their services through this
system. In large part, program performance is measured by collecting
standard measures on the outcomes of individuals who use these
services. Under WIA, the Department of Labor (Labor) has general
responsibility and oversight of the one-stop system.
Since 2001, Labor has spent almost $900 million on three employment and
training grant initiatives to address what Labor perceived as
shortcomings in the one-stop service delivery system: the High Growth
Job Training Initiative (High Growth) beginning in 2001, the Community
Based Job Training Initiative (Community Based) beginning in 2005, and
the Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED)
initiative beginning in 2006. In 2005 Congress expressed interest in
how Labor was awarding the High Growth grants and instituted a number
of reporting requirements, including a justification for sole source
awards.
Given the size of the investment and the interest in noncompetitive
awards, we were asked to examine: (1) the intent of the grant
initiatives and the extent to which Labor will be able to assess their
effects; (2) the extent to which the process used competition, was
adequately documented, and included key players; and (3) what Labor is
doing to monitor individual grantee compliance with grant requirements.
To determine the intent of the grant initiatives and the extent to
which Labor will be able to assess their effects, we reviewed grant
applications, grantee quarterly reports, Labor's strategic plan, and
documents related to evaluations of the initiatives and their purpose.
We obtained a list of all High Growth, Community Based, and WIRED
grants from Labor for fiscal year 2001, the first year High Growth
grants were awarded, through fiscal year 2007. We assessed the
reliability of these data by (1) reviewing the data for obvious errors
and completeness, (2) reviewing related documentation, and (3)
interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this report. We also interviewed relevant Labor officials and persons
with recognized workforce and training expertise. To determine the
extent to which the process used competition, was adequately
documented, and included key players, we reviewed relevant laws,
Labor's internal procedures for awarding grants, and Labor's inspector
general's report on High Growth grants. Out of a universe of about 340
grantees provided by Labor at the time of our review, we selected 8 for
in-depth study. These were selected because each grant exceeded $1
million, and they represented the range of grant types. These grantees
were located in seven states: Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New
Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New York, and Washington. For each grantee, we
conducted semi-structured interviews and reviewed each grantee's
application and recent quarterly reports. We also interviewed state and
local workforce officials in these states. To address what Labor is
doing to monitor the performance of grantees, we reviewed Labor's
monitoring procedures, six grantee monitoring reports provided by Labor
as examples, and the single audit of a grantee we contacted. We also
reviewed a list of High Growth and Community Based grants that had been
monitored by Labor. See appendix I for a more detailed discussion of
the scope and methodology. We conducted our work from May 2007 to May
2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief:
According to Labor officials, the grant initiatives were designed to
change the focus of the public workforce system to emphasize the
employment and training needs of high-growth, high-demand industries,
but Labor will be challenged to assess their impact because it did not
plan well at the outset to identify performance goals and collect data
comparable to those it collects from other programs. For the three
grant initiatives, Labor awarded 349 grants totaling almost $900
million intended to identify the workforce and training needs of
growing, high-demand industries; engage workforce, industry, and
educational partners to develop innovative solutions to workforce
challenges; leverage a wide array of resources to fund the solutions;
and integrate workforce and economic development to transform regional
economies. While Labor said the three grant initiatives were necessary
to shift the focus of the workforce investment system, experts said
that some state and local workforce boards were already pursuing
strategies focusing on high-growth, high-demand industries, but there
was little consensus on the extent to which this was occurring. In
addition, experts identified a number of systematic factors that might
explain why workforce boards face challenges in pursuing such
strategies (for example, statutory requirements to target services to
certain groups of workers). Beyond the question of how extensive such
practices were, Labor officials said that a number of indicators show
the initiatives are changing the system in line with their intended
goals (for example, an increased focus on workforce challenges and
solutions at workforce system conferences). However, 7 years after
awarding the first grant, Labor will be challenged to evaluate their
effect. These grant initiatives were not fully integrated into either
Labor's strategic plan or its overall research agenda at the outset;
therefore, it is unclear what criteria Labor will use to evaluate their
effectiveness. Labor is working to require grantees to collect the same
data on performance outcomes, called common measures, that are used to
evaluate outcomes for individuals served by other programs. Comparable
outcome data are essential to assessing the impact of these initiatives
because without it Labor will lack a common point of comparison.
While Labor now awards grants under all three grant initiatives
competitively, the initial noncompetitive process for awarding High
Growth grants was not adequately documented and did not include key
players. Community Based and WIRED grants have always been awarded
competitively, but more than 80 percent of High Growth grants, which
represented almost 90 percent of the High Growth dollars--over $263
millionĉwere awarded noncompetitively even though federal law and
Labor's internal procedures recommend competition. Labor began awarding
some High Growth grants competitively in 2005; and Congress, in the
fiscal year 2007 and 2008 appropriation laws, required Labor to
competitively award High Growth grants funded under one of the two laws
that authorize High Growth grants. Labor could not provide
documentation of the initial criteria it used for selecting High Growth
grants awarded without competition or whether these grants met
requirements of the laws authorizing the grants or Labor's own
procedures for awarding grants without competition. Labor has taken
steps to strengthen the process used for awarding noncompetitive
grants; however, the procedures do not explicitly identify the
statutory program requirements for which compliance should be
documented. In addition, some state and local workforce investment
board officials said that Labor's process for identifying solutions to
workforce challenges did not include them even though the Workforce
Investment Act makes these boards central to the workforce system.
Labor said it invited participation from workforce investment boards
that were pursuing innovative workforce solutions and went so far as to
enlist state coordinators to find them. Yet, even with these efforts,
Labor's list of participants shows that only 26 of the roughly 650
local workforce investment boards representing 15 states were at the
meetings. Promising ideas that originated at these meetings were
shepherded by Labor through the awards process.
Labor provides some monitoring of grantees under all three initiatives
and uses a risk-based monitoring approach for High Growth and Community
Based grants, but not for WIRED grants. As part of monitoring, Labor
officials said they have a process for ensuring that grantees resolve
findings in single audit reports. However, Labor's inspector general
found that Labor did not have procedures to require follow up on past
due audit reports and recommended Labor implement such procedures.
Although Labor has done so, Labor's inspector general has not yet
determined if these procedures adequately address the recommendation.
As another part of its monitoring, Labor requires High Growth,
Community Based, and WIRED grantees to submit quarterly financial and
performance reports, but is still working to ensure the consistency of
performance reports provided by High Growth and Community Based
grantees. Labor provides technical assistance to help grantees comply
with grant requirements, such as orientation sessions and guides on
managing High Growth and Community Based grants. Labor officials said
they have provided extensive technical assistance to each WIRED grantee
including weekly contact and annual site visits to the first 13 WIRED
grantees. In addition, Labor has spent $16 million on contracts to
provide grantees with technical assistance and support. While these
efforts help grantees manage their grants, they do not provide a risk-
based monitoring process. In line with suggested grant practices, Labor
uses a risk-based strategy to monitor High Growth and Community Based
grants, selecting monitored grantees based on indications of potential
problems. Labor has monitored about half of the High Growth grants and
over one-quarter of the Community Based grants. Labor officials said
they are developing a WIRED grant assessment tool they plan to
implement in spring 2008; however, the department has not finalized the
tool nor developed a schedule for its use.
To determine the impact of these three grant programs, ensure that the
best possible projects are selected, and improve accountability of
grant funds, we are recommending that the Secretary of Labor take steps
to ensure that the agency can evaluate the impact of the initiatives,
and that the agency identify the statutory program requirements for
which compliance must be documented when awarding noncompetitive
grants. In addition, we recommend that the Secretary develop and
implement a risk-based monitoring approach for WIRED and a schedule for
its use.
We provided a draft of the report to Labor for review and comment. In
response to our first recommendation, Labor said it has taken initial
steps to evaluate the impact of the initiatives and disagreed with our
assertion that the initiatives are not integrated into its strategic
plan. We agree that the agency has taken initial steps, but these do
not ensure that they will be able to assess the initiatives' impact. We
do not dispute that the strategic plan mentions the initiatives;
however, we found that both the strategic and research plans do not tie
the High Growth or WIRED initiatives to performance goals. In response
to our second recommendation, Labor said it recently developed
procedures to document noncompetitive grant proposals' compliance with
statutory requirements. Our review of the documents supporting these
procedures found no specific reference to statutory program
requirements against which proposals would be checked for compliance.
We revised our draft recommendation to clarify that we are asking Labor
to identify the statutory program requirements for which compliance
should be documented. In response to our third recommendation, Labor
said it plans to implement a risk-based monitoring approach. We
continue to recommend that Labor follow through with this effort.
Labor disagreed with several of our findings. It questioned whether it
needed comparable outcome data. However, we believe that data which
allow comparisons of the initiative participants' outcomes with those
of participants in WIA formula programs are important. Labor's own
documents suggest that these types of comparisons are warranted. The
department also stated that workforce boards do not face challenges
that cannot be overcome in pursuing demand driven practices encouraged
under the three initiatives. However, it acknowledged that it made
efforts to provide workforce boards with assistance in implementing
demand-driven approaches, some of which may address challenges GAO
identified. Labor suggested that changing selection criteria was not
improper; however, the absence of selection criteria or their changing
over time affects the transparency of the non-competitive grant award
process. The department noted that there are no rules for documenting
the decision-making process for non-competitive grants, but agreed that
additional documentation would be valuable.
Background:
When it was enacted in 1998, WIA created a new, comprehensive workforce
investment system designed to change the way employment and training
services are delivered. Under WIA, each state establishes a state
workforce investment board that, among other duties, determines
strategic priorities, current and projected employment opportunities,
and job skills necessary to obtain such employment. It also designates
local workforce investment areas across the state and develops an
allocation formula for distributing funds to those local areas. Each
local area is governed by local workforce investment boards that make
decisions about the number and location of one-stop career centers,
where partner programs make their services and activities available.
Local boards are required to promote employers' participation in the
workforce investment system and assist them in meeting hiring needs.
Training services provided must be directly linked to occupations in
demand in the local area. To further the involvement of employers, WIA
requires that more than half the members of each state and local
workforce investment board be representatives of business. The purpose
of the one-stop system is to increase the employment, retention, and
earnings of job seekers and, by increasing their occupational skills,
enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the national economy.
WIA requires states and localities to track the performance of WIA-
funded activities and Labor to hold states accountable for their
performance in the areas of job placement, employment retention, and
earnings change.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) oversees the High
Growth, Community Based, and Wired grant initiatives. The vast majority
of these grants are awarded under a provision of WIA,[Footnote 1] which
provides authority for demonstration, pilot, multi-service, research,
and multi-state projects, and a provision of the American
Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA),[Footnote 2]
which provides authority for job training grants funded by the H-1B
visa program.[Footnote 3] [Footnote 4]
Labor is required to conduct impact evaluations of its programs and
activities carried out under WIA, including pilot and demonstration
projects.[Footnote 5] While impact evaluations make it possible to
isolate a program's effect on participants' outcomes, there are several
ways to conduct them, including experimental and quasi-experimental
methods.[Footnote 6] In 2004[Footnote 7] and 2007,[Footnote 8] GAO
recommended that Labor comply with WIA requirements to conduct an
impact evaluation of WIA services to determine what services are most
effective for improving employment-related outcomes. Labor agreed with
our recommendation. In December 2007, the agency announced it had begun
a quasi-experimental evaluationĉan impact evaluation that does not use
a control group--of the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs, with
a final report expected in November 2008.
Federal law recommends, but does not require that all grants be awarded
through competition. The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act
encourages competition in grant programs, where appropriate, to ensure
that the best possible projects are funded.[Footnote 9] In addition,
Labor's own guidance governing procurement and grant operations--the
Department of Labor Manual Series--states that competition is
recommended, unless one or more of eight exceptions apply.[Footnote 10]
Further, a guide on improving grant accountability developed by the
Domestic Working Group Grant Accountability Project recommends grants
be awarded competitively because competition facilitates
accountability, promotes fairness and openness, and increases assurance
that grantees have the systems in place to efficiently and effectively
use funds to meet grant goals.[Footnote 11]
Effective monitoring is also a critical component of grant management.
The Domestic Working Group's suggested grant practices states that
financial and performance monitoring is important to ensure
accountability and the attainment of performance goals. Labor monitors
most grants through a risk-based strategy based on its "Core Monitoring
Guide." A key goal is to determine compliance with specific program
requirements. The guide includes five monitoring areas: program design
and governance, program and grant management systems, financial
management systems, service, and product delivery, and performance
accountability. In addition, entities receiving Labor grants are
subject to the provisions of the Single Audit Act if certain conditions
are met.[Footnote 12] The act established the concept of the single
audit to replace multiple grant audits with one audit of a recipient as
a whole. As such, a single audit is an organization wide audit that
covers, among other things, the recipient's internal controls and its
compliance with applicable provisions of laws, regulations, contracts,
and grants.
Grants Are Intended to Change the Workforce System, but Labor Will Be
Challenged to Evaluate Their Impact:
According to Labor officials, the grant initiatives are designed to
change the focus of the public workforce system to emphasize the
employment and training needs of high-growth, high-demand industries,
but Labor will be challenged in assessing their impact. For the three
grant initiatives, Labor awarded 349 grants totaling almost $900
million that were intended to bring about this change by identifying
the workforce and training needs of growing, high-demand industries;
engaging workforce, industry, and educational partners to develop
innovative solutions to workforce challenges, such as worker shortages;
leveraging a wide array of resources to fund the solutions; and
integrating workforce and economic development to transform regional
economies by creating good jobs. However, 7 years after awarding the
first grant, Labor will be challenged to evaluate the effect of the
grants.
Labor Said the Grants Are Designed to Make the Workforce System More
Focused on High-Growth, High-Demand Industries:
According to Labor officials, the High Growth, Community Based, and
WIRED initiatives are designed to collectively change the focus of the
workforce investment system by giving greater emphasis to the
employment and training needs of high-growth, high-demand industries.
They characterized High Growth as a systematic change initiative
designed to make the system more demand-driven (i.e., focused on the
needs of growing and high-demand industries) and to make the system's
approach to workforce development more strategic by engaging business,
industry, and education partners to identify workforce challenges and
solutions.[Footnote 13] The Computing Technology Industry Association
provides one example of the kinds of activities funded under these
grants. It used its High Growth grant to expand an apprenticeship
program in a growing industry--information technology. As a related
effort, the Community Based grants were designed to build the training
capacity of community colleges for high-growth, high-demand
occupations. In expanding existing training programs and developing new
programs aimed at addressing worker shortages in three high-demand
health care occupations--nursing, dental hygiene, and health unit
coordinators, the Seattle Central Community College in Washington
provides an example of efforts funded under these grants. The goal of
third grant initiative, WIRED, was to "catalyze" the creation of high-
skill and high-wage opportunities for workers within the context of
regional economies, to test models for integrating workforce and
economic development, and to demonstrate that workforce development is
a key driver in transforming regional economies. The northeast region
of Pennsylvania provides one example of the types of projects funded
through WIRED. Pennsylvania is using WIRED grant funds to develop Wall
Street West, a nine county regional project intended to provide backup
and disaster recovery operations and facilities for the New York City
financial markets. According to Labor officials, these funds support
workforce education and training to support this effort. From 2001
through 2007, Labor awarded 349 grants totaling almost $900 million for
these initiatives (see table 1). For a list of these grants, see
appendix II.
Table 1: Total Number and Amount of Grants Awarded by Labor, 2001-2007:
Grant initiative: High Growth;
Number of grants: 166;
Amount: $295,522,793.
Grant initiative: Community Based;
Number of grants: 142;
Amount: $250,000,000.
Grant initiative: WIRED;
Number of grants: 41;
Amount: $323,999,944.
Grant initiative: Total;
Number of grants: 349;
Amount: $869,522,737.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data.
[End of table]
While Labor said the three grant initiatives were necessary to shift
the focus of the workforce investment system, experts held varying
opinions on the extent to which state and local workforce boards were
pursuing demand-driven strategies on their own. Of the experts we spoke
with, one said that many states were already focusing on high-growth
sectors, reaching out to industry, and developing strategic
partnerships. Another characterized innovation among workforce boards
as a normal curve that ranged from highly functional to less than
functional. One said that some boards had always been pursuing these
types of strategies. Another said that the system had been lacking in
this regard.
In addition, when considering how extensive demand-driven practices
might have been, experts identified a number of systematic factors that
might explain why workforce boards would face challenges in pursuing
them. These included insufficient funding, limited flexibility in how
funds can be used, statutory requirements to target services to certain
groups of workers, and the need to respond to local economic
conditions. Commenting on workforce boards' ability to form strategic
partnerships, one expert noted that there are no funds to support such
endeavors and no performance standards to measure them. With regard to
regional economic development, experts said boards are structured
around local areas, not regions, regional economies are highly
variable, regional governance structures can make achieving buy-in
difficult and that rural areas can be particularly challenged in
pursuing regional approaches.
Beyond the question of how extensive demand-driven practices were,
Labor officials said a number of indicators show that the initiatives
are changing the system. According to Labor, they have seen a "system-
shift" in the approach to implementing workforce solutions through an
increase in demand-driven topics at conferences since the roll out of
the initiatives. Labor said this shift has been driven by partnerships
between the workforce investment system, business, industry, and
educators using the High Growth framework. Labor also said it is seeing
demand-driven strategies in state and local strategic plans and in
states using their own money to fund High Growth-like projects. Labor
pointed out that the system has evolved to the point where high
performing local workforce boards with demand-driven practices are
mentoring lesser performers. Lastly, Labor said the content on its Web
site, Workforce3 One, was also evidence of change. For example, Labor
held an interactive seminar broadcast on this site to train
participants to use an on-line tool to share curricula developed
through the initiatives.
Seven Years after Awarding the First Grant, Labor Will Be Challenged to
Evaluate Their Impact:
Despite the money invested and emphasis placed on these initiatives,
Labor did not fully integrate them into its strategic plan or ETA's
research plan from the start. The Government Performance and Results
Act states that strategic plans shall contain strategic goals and
objectives, including outcome-related, or performance goals, and
objectives for an agency's major functions and operations.[Footnote 14]
However, the strategic plan includes performance goals only for the
Community Based initiative. High Growth and WIRED--the two initiatives
where Labor spent the most moneyĉare mentioned in the strategic plan,
but not specifically linked to a performance goal; therefore, it is
unclear what criteria Labor will use to evaluate their effectiveness.
Moreover, the data needed to assess the performance of these
initiatives are not specified. Labor officials said the strategic plan
did not address the initiatives because it focuses on budget issues.
Just as the initiatives are not fully integrated into the strategic
plan, neither are they fully integrated into ETA's research plan, which
cites plans for future evaluations, but it does not specify an
assessment of their impact.
Not fully incorporating the initiatives into its strategic or research
plans may have limited Labor's ability to collect consistent outcome
data. Labor said that prior to 2005, it consistently collected data
from grantees on the number of participants enrolled in and completing
training funded under High Growth--the only one of the three grant
initiatives operating at that time. However, it did not collect
performance outcomes similar to those being collected for its other
training and employment services.[Footnote 15] In 2005, Labor
instituted what were called common measures to assess the effectiveness
of one-stop programs and services. The common measures include
participant employment outcomes, earnings, and job retention after
receiving services. Currently, Labor cannot require High Growth and
Community Based grantees to provide data on the common measures until
it receives OMB approval. According to Labor, it can collect such
measures for WIRED grantees, but it has not yet done so.[Footnote 16]
As a result, Labor may not have consistent data for individuals
participating in the programs funded under the grant initiatives. In
addition, it may lack data that will allow it to compare outcomes for
individuals served by grant-funded programs with those served by
employment and training programs offered through the one-stop system.
Having comparable outcome data is important because the goal of an
impact evaluation is to determine if outcomes are attributable to a
program or can be explained by other factors.
Labor will face challenges in obtaining the data necessary to make
meaningful comparisons. Starting in 2006, Labor included information on
the common measures in all new solicitations for High Growth and
Community Based grants, notified grantees of its goal for standardizing
performance reporting, and provided technical assistance to help
grantees prepare for it. Labor also encouraged grantees to work with
local workforce system partners to leverage their experience in
tracking and reporting performance outcomes. Labor anticipates having
an OMB approved reporting format in place by July 1, 2008. However,
because some of the first grantees have already completed their
projects, obtaining information about workers that have left the
program may prove difficult and costly.
Labor has some plans underway to evaluate the initiatives, but may face
challenges drawing strong conclusions from them. Labor has conducted an
evaluation of the implementation and sustainability of 20 early High
Growth grantees. It is now evaluating the impact of the training
provided by High Growth grantees. Labor anticipates the final report in
December 2008. However, Labor has already experienced a number of
challenges in evaluating the initiatives. These include having to limit
its evaluation to only 6 grantees of 166, because only 6 had sufficient
participants to ensure a statistically significant evaluation. They
also include problems gaining access to workers' earnings data, and
inconsistent outcome data from grantees.
Labor officials said they plan to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of
the Community Based initiative. The first phase of the evaluation will
examine the extent to which the Community Based grants addressed the
stated workforce objectives and challenges funded projects were
intended to address, as well as document the role of business and the
workforce investment system in the overall success of the grants,
according to Labor. This phase will also include an examination of the
feasibility of performing an impact evaluation and will be completed in
late 2008. Depending on the results of this phase, Labor officials said
an impact evaluation will begin in 2009.
For its evaluation of the WIRED initiatives, Labor says it is examining
the implementation and cumulative effects of WIRED strategies,
including change in the number and size of companies in targeted high-
growth industries and whether new training led to job placement in the
targeted industries. It contracted with the Berkeley Policy Associates
to conduct the evaluation for the first 13 grantees, and a final report
is expected by June 2010. It also contracted with Public Policy
Associates to similarly evaluate the 28 remaining WIRED grantees. Labor
officials said these initiatives are not included in the agency's
broader WIA impact study.
The Initial Noncompetitive Process Was Not Adequately Documented and
Did Not Include Key Players:
While Labor now awards grants under all three grant initiatives
competitively, initially almost all High Growth grants were awarded
without competition. Labor also did not document the criteria for
selecting noncompetitive High Growth grants or whether they met Labor's
internal requirements or the requirements of the laws under which the
grants are authorized. In addition, Labor's process for identifying
workforce solutions did not include most of the state and local
workforce investment boards.
All Three Types of Grants Are Now Awarded Competitively, but the Vast
Majority of High Growth Grants Were Awarded Without Competition:
The Community Based and the WIRED grants have always been awarded
through a competitive process, but until 2005, Labor did not award High
Growth grants competitively even though federal law and Labor's
internal procedures recommend competition. While Labor had discretion
in awarding High Growth grants without competition, the extent to which
it did so raises questions about how Labor used this method of awarding
grants. Competition facilitates accountability, promotes fairness and
openness, and increases assurance that grantees have systems in place
to meet grant goals. Yet Labor chose to award 83 percent of the High
Growth grants, which represented almost 90 percent of the funds,
without competition between fiscal years 2001 and 2007 (see table 2).
Congress required that High Growth grants funded by H-1B fees be
awarded competitively for fiscal years 2007 and 2008.[Footnote 17]
Prior to that time, there were no provisions requiring Labor to award
High Growth grants competitively.
Table 2: The Number of High Growth Grants and Funds Awarded
Competitively and Noncompetitively between Fiscal Years 2001 and 2007
(Dollars in millions):
Fiscal year: 2001;
Number of noncompetitive grants: 1;
Funds awarded noncompetitively: $2.8;
Number of competitive grants: 0;
Funds awarded competitively: 0;
Summary of grants and funds awarded noncompetitively: 100% of grants
and funds.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Number of noncompetitive grants: 7;
Funds awarded noncompetitively: $14.7;
Number of competitive grants: 0;
Funds awarded competitively: 0;
Summary of grants and funds awarded noncompetitively: 100% of grants
and funds.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Number of noncompetitive grants: 15;
Funds awarded noncompetitively: $30.3;
Number of competitive grants: 0;
Funds awarded competitively: 0;
Summary of grants and funds awarded noncompetitively: 100% of grants
and funds.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Number of noncompetitive grants: 37;
Funds awarded noncompetitively: $77.4;
Number of competitive grants: 0;
Funds awarded competitively: 0;
Summary of grants and funds awarded noncompetitively: 100% of grants
and funds.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Number of noncompetitive grants: 55;
Funds awarded noncompetitively: $86.7;
Number of competitive grants: 12;
Funds awarded competitively: $12;
Summary of grants and funds awarded noncompetitively: 82% of grants and
88% of funds.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Number of noncompetitive grants: 21;
Funds awarded noncompetitively: $50.5;
Number of competitive grants: 0;
Funds awarded competitively: 0;
Summary of grants and funds awarded noncompetitively: 100% of grants
and funds.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Number of noncompetitive grants: 1;
Funds awarded noncompetitively: $1.4;
Number of competitive grants: 17;
Funds awarded competitively: $19.8;
Summary of grants and funds awarded noncompetitively: 6% of grants and
7% of funds.
Fiscal year: Total;
Number of noncompetitive grants: 137;
Funds awarded noncompetitively: $263.8[A];
Number of competitive grants: 29;
Funds awarded competitively: $31.8[A];
Summary of grants and funds awarded noncompetitively: 83% of grants and
89% of funds.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data.
Notes: The fiscal year was calculated based on the start date of the
grant. Labor awards grants by program year rather than fiscal year,
which is from July 1 through June 30 of each year.
[A] Total dollar amount varies from Labor's reported figure due to
rounding.
[End of table]
Labor said that it used a noncompetitive process to promote innovation.
They also said that they awarded grants without competition to save the
time it would have taken to solicit grants through competition. In
hindsight, they said they could have offered the High Growth grants
competitively earlier because they recognized that the number of
noncompetitive awards created a perception that the process was unfair.
They said, however, that they always intended to award later grants
competitively.
In contrast to the High Growth grants, the Community Based and WIRED
initiatives have always been awarded through competition. These funding
opportunities were announced to potential applicants through a
solicitation for grant application that listed the information that an
application must include to compete for funding. These applications
were then reviewed and scored by a knowledgeable technical panel. These
solicitations were also reviewed by Labor attorneys for compliance with
procurement and statutory program requirements for awarding grants,
according to officials.
Labor Did Not Document the Criteria for Selecting Noncompetitive High
Growth Grants or Whether They Met Labor's Internal Requirements or
Requirements of the Law:
Because the initial High Growth process was noncompetitive, documenting
the decision steps was all the more important to ensure transparency.
However, Labor was unable to provide documentation of the initial
criteria for selecting grantees. As a result, it did not meet federal
internal control standards, which state that all transactions and other
significant events need to be clearly documented and that the
documentation should be readily available for examination.[Footnote 18]
In addition, it was unable to document that it met the statutory
requirements for the laws authorizing the grants. Lastly, according to
Labor's inspector general, it did not adequately document that it had
followed its own procedures for awarding grants without competition.
Labor did not document the criteria used to select the early
noncompetitive High Growth projects. Labor officials told us there were
no official published guidelines specific to High Growth grants, only
draft guidelines, which were no longer available. In addition, Labor
officials told us that generally they were looking for grantees that
pursued partnerships and leveraged resources, but that attributes they
sought changed over time. Labor published general requirements for
noncompetitive grants in 2005 and updated them in 2007. Officials said
these were not requirements, only guidelines for the kinds of
information Labor would find valuable in evaluating proposals.
In addition, while Labor said noncompetitive grants could be awarded
without competition under the WIA provision authorizing demonstrations
and pilot projects[Footnote 19] and under ACWIA, they could not
document that the grants fully complied with the requirements of these
provisions. For example, WIA requirements include providing direct
services to individuals, including an evaluative component, and being
awarded to private entities with recognized expertise or to state and
local entities with expertise in operating or overseeing workforce
investment programs.[Footnote 20] Officials said that they were certain
they had ensured that the projects met all statutory requirements, but
acknowledged they did not document that the requirements were met.
Labor's inspector general found the agency did not always document that
it followed its own procedures or always obtained required review and
approval before awarding grants noncompetitively. Labor officials said
most of the noncompetitive grant proposals were presented to Labor's
Procurement Review Board[Footnote 21] for review and approval allowed
under exceptions for proposals that were unique or innovative, highly
cost-effective, or available from only one source.[Footnote 22]
However, in 2007, Labor's inspector general reviewed a sample of the
noncompetitive High Growth grants awarded between July 2001 and March
2007 and found that 6 of the 26 grants, which should have undergone
review, were awarded without prior approval from the review board.
Furthermore, they found that Labor could not demonstrate that proper
procedures were followed in awarding the High Growth grants without
competition.[Footnote 23]
Although they were unable to provide documentation, Labor officials
said they used considerable rigor in selecting grant recipients under
the noncompetitive process. Similar to a competitive process, the
noncompetitive grant proposals were highly scrutinized and reviewed to
ensure they made best use of scarce resources. They said that in most
cases, staff created abstracts to highlight strengths and weaknesses
and multiple staff and managers participated in reviews and decision-
making. In addition, Labor officials strongly disagreed with the
majority of the inspector general's findings. They said they followed
established procurement practices as required but agreed that
additional documentation would be valuable.
In response to the inspector general's report, Labor has taken steps to
strengthen the noncompetitive process. These include developing
procedures to review noncompetitive grant proposals for criteria
including support of at least one of ETA's strategic goals and
investment priorities. The procedures also require ETA to document that
required procedures are followed and that required review and approval
is obtained before awarding grants noncompetitively. However, the newly
developed procedures do not explicitly identify the statutory program
requirements for which compliance should be documented.
Labor's Process for Identifying Industry Workforce Challenges Did Not
Include the Majority of Workforce Investment Boards:
The vast majority of workforce boards--which oversee the workforce
investment system--were not included in the meetings that served as
incubators for grant proposals. After identifying 13 high-growth/high-
demand sectors,[Footnote 24] Labor held a series of meetings between
2002 and 2005 with industry executives and other stakeholders to
identify workforce challenges and to develop solutions to them.
[Footnote 25] According to Labor, they first held meetings with
industry executives--executive forums--for 13 sectors to hear directly
from industry leaders about the growth potential for their industries
and to understand the workforce challenges they faced. Second, they
hosted a series of workforce solutions forums for 11 of the sectors,
which brought together industry executives (often those engaged in
human resources and training activities) with representatives from
education, state and local workforce boards, or other workforce-related
agencies.[Footnote 26] However, a review of Labor's rosters for the
solutions forums shows that while there were more than 800
participants, 26 of the almost 650 local workforce boards nationwide
were represented, and these came from 15 states. (See fig. 1.)
Figure 1: Number of Workforce Investment Boards and States with
Participants at Solutions Forums:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the United States depicting the following
information:
Number of workforce investment board representatives: 3;
States: California; Florida; Kentucky; Texas.
Number of workforce investment board representatives: 2;
States: Illinois; Virginia; Washington.
Number of workforce investment board representatives: 1;
States: Connecticut; Delaware; Idaho; Massachusetts; Maine; New York;
Pennsylvania; Tennessee.
Number of workforce investment board representatives: 0;
States: All other states.
[End of figure]
Further only 20 of the 50 states had their state workforce investment
board or other agency represented (see table 3).[Footnote 27]
Table 3: Industry Sector Solutions Forums and the Number of
Participants:
Industry sector solutions forum: Advanced manufacturing;
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 61;
Local workforce investment board participation: 3;
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation:
0.
Industry sector solutions forum: Aerospace;
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 40;
Local workforce investment board participation: 1;
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation:
0.
Industry sector solutions forum: Automotive;
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 216;
Local workforce investment board participation: 6;
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation:
9.
Industry sector solutions forum: Biotechnology;
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 29;
Local workforce investment board participation: 4;
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation:
6.
Industry sector solutions forum: Construction;
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 86;
Local workforce investment board participation: 5;
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation:
2.
Industry sector solutions forum: Energy;
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 26;
Local workforce investment board participation: 0;
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation:
1.
Industry sector solutions forum: Financial services;
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 99;
Local workforce investment board participation: 3;
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation:
4.
Industry sector solutions forum: Geospatial technology;
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 41;
Local workforce investment board participation: 1;
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation:
2.
Industry sector solutions forum: Health;
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 155;
Local workforce investment board participation: 6;
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation:
10.
Industry sector solutions forum: Hospitality;
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 57;
Local workforce investment board participation: 3;
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation:
3.
Industry sector solutions forum: Transportation;
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 19;
Local workforce investment board participation: 2;
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation:
2.
Industry sector solutions forum: Total;
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 829;
Local workforce investment board participation: 34[A];
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation:
39[B].
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor data on solutions
forums participants.
[A] The numbers for local workforce investment board participation does
not total 26 because 2 workforce investment boards participated in more
than one solutions forums; the remaining 24 participated in only one.
Also some local workforce investment boards had more than one
representative.
[B] The numbers for state workforce investment board or other state
agency participation does not total 20 because several states attended
more than one forum and some states had more than one agency
represented.
[End of table]
Labor officials said they went to great lengths to include workforce
system participants in solutions forums. Officials said they asked
state workforce agencies to identify a state coordinator to interface
with Labor, work collaboratively with industry partners, and identify
potential attendees for executive and solutions forums. Further, the
state coordinators were to help Labor communicate with the workforce
system about High Growth activities and were kept updated through
routine conference calls and periodic in-person meetings, according to
Labor. Labor officials also said the Assistant Secretary and other
senior officials traveled frequently, speaking to workforce system
partners at conferences to gather information about innovative
practices. Labor officials said, even with these efforts, they found
only a few workforce boards operating unique or innovative demand-
driven programs.
However, most workforce board officials we spoke to in our site visits
reported becoming aware of the meetings and the grant opportunities
after the fact, even though they were pursuing the kinds of innovative
practices the meeting was supposed to promote. Some state board
officials said that they were often unaware that grants had been
awarded, and at least one local workforce board said it became aware of
a grant only when the community college grantee approached it for
assistance in getting enough students for their program. In addition,
officials in states we visited said they had been developing and using
the types of practices that Labor was seeking to promote at the
meetings.
Being present at the meetings could have been beneficial to workforce
boards. Labor officials acknowledged that when meeting participants
suggested a solution to an employment challenge that they deemed
innovative and had merit, they encouraged them to submit a proposal for
a grant to model the solution. In addition, officials said that in some
cases, they provided applicants additional assistance to increase the
chances that the proposal would be funded.
Labor Uses a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach for High Growth and
Community Based Grants but Not for WIRED Grants:
For all three grant initiatives, Labor has a process to resolve
findings found in single audits, collects quarterly performance
information, and provides technical assistance as a part of monitoring.
In addition, it has a risk-based monitoring approach for High Growth
and Community Based grants, but has not implemented such an approach
for WIRED grants.[Footnote 28] However, Labor officials told us that
they are developing a risk-based approach for monitoring WIRED grants
that they plan to implement in the spring of 2008. According to Labor's
grants monitoring guide, improving grant administration is crucial to
Labor's management improvement plans and risk-based on-site monitoring
of grantees is an important part of this effort.
Labor Has a Process to Ensure Grantees Resolve Findings in Single
Audits, Collects Quarterly Performance Information, and Provides
Technical Assistance:
Labor said it has a process to work with grantees, including High
Growth, Community Based, and WIRED to resolve findings in single
audits. However, Labor's inspector general reported that Labor does not
have procedures in place for grant officers to follow up with grantees
with past due audit reports to ensure timely submission and thus proper
oversight and correction of audit findings. The inspector general
recommended that Labor implement such procedures and Labor has done so,
but the finding remains open because Labor's inspector general has not
yet determined if the procedures adequately address the recommendation.
[Footnote 29]
As part of its monitoring, Labor requires High Growth, Community Based,
and WIRED grantees to submit quarterly financial and performance
reports. Financial reports contain information, such as total amount of
grant funds spent and amount of matching funds provided by the grantee.
Performance reports focus on activities leading to performance goals,
such as grantee accomplishments and challenges to meeting grant goals.
Labor officials said they review these reports and follow up with
grantees if there are questions. Labor officials acknowledge, however,
that they are still working to ensure the consistency of performance
reports provided by High Growth and Community Based grantees and are
working with OMB to establish consistent reporting requirements. In
addition, while the finding was not specific to these three grants,
Labor's inspector general cited high error rates in grantee performance
data as a management challenge.[Footnote 30] Labor is taking steps to
improve grant accountability, such as providing grantee and grant
officer training.
All grantees receive technical assistance from Labor on how to comply
with laws and regulations, program guidance, and grant conditions. For
example, Labor issued guides for High Growth and Community Based
grantees which include information on allowable costs and reporting
requirements. In addition, Labor officials said they trained national
and regional office staff to address grantees' questions and help High
Growth and Community Based grantees obtain assistance from experts at
Labor and other grantees. Labor officials said they hold national and
regional High Growth and Community Based grantee orientation sessions
for new grantees, present technical assistance webinars and training
sessions focused on specific high-growth industries, assist grantees
with disseminating grant results and products, such as curricula, and
set up virtual networking groups of High Growth grantees to encourage
collaboration.
Labor officials told us they have teams who provide technical
assistance to each WIRED grantee including weekly contact. During these
sessions, Labor staff work with WIRED grantees on grant management
issues, such as costs that are allowed using grant funds. Labor staff
provide additional assistance through conference calls, site visits,
and documentation reviews. In addition, Labor officials said they have
held five webinars on allowable costs and provided grantees with a
paper on allowable costs in July 2006, which was updated in July 2007.
Finally, Labor officials explained that they made annual site visits
for the first 13 WIRED grantees in spring and summer of 2007 to discuss
implementation plans and progress toward plan goals. In addition, Labor
staff said they have reviewed the implementation of the remaining WIRED
grants to ensure that planned activities comply with requirements of
the law. However, none of these reviews resulted in written reports
with findings and corrective action plans.
Labor has spent $16 million on contracts to provide technical
assistance, improve grant management, administration, and monitoring,
and to assist Labor with tasks such as holding grantee training
conferences. The larger of these contracts focus on providing technical
assistance to WIRED grantees. For example, one contract valued at over
$2 million provides WIRED grantees assistance with assessing regional
strength and weaknesses and developing regional economic strategies and
implementation plans. Another grant, valued at almost $4 million,
provides a database and geographic information system[Footnote 31] that
WIRED grantees can use to facilitate data analysis and reporting, among
other things. For a list of these contracts, see appendix III.
While these monitoring and technical assistance efforts are useful to
help grantees manage their grants, they do not provide a risk-based
monitoring process to identify and resolve problems, such as compliance
issues, in a consistent and timely manner.
Labor Provides Risk-Based Monitoring for High Growth and Community
Based Grants:
Labor uses a risk-based strategy to monitor grants under two of the
three grant initiatives: High Growth and Community Based. For these
initiatives it selects grantees to monitor based on indications of
problems that may affect grant performance. Labor's risk-based approach
to monitoring most grants reflects suggested grant practices. Suggested
grant practices recognize that it is important to identify, prioritize,
and manage potential at-risk grant recipients for monitoring given the
large number of grants awarded by federal agencies. Through this
process, Labor staff determine if grantee administration and program
delivery systems operate, the grantee is in compliance with program
requirements, and information reported is accurate.
Labor's risk-based monitoring strategy involves conducting site visits
based on grantees' assessed risk-levels and availability of resources,
among other things.[Footnote 32] These site visits include written
assessments of grantee's management and performance and compliance
findings and requirements for corrective action. For example, Labor's
site visit guide includes questions about financial and performance
data reporting systems, such as how well the grantee maintains files on
program participants.[Footnote 33]
Labor has monitored about half of the High Growth grants and over one-
quarter of the Community Based grants. Labor officials said these
monitoring efforts have resulted in a number of significant findings
which have generally been resolved in a timely manner. (See table 4.)
For example, during a November 2006 site visit of a Community Based
grantee Labor identified three findings: incomplete participant files,
failure to follow internal procurement procedures, and missing grant
partnership agreements. Similarly, during a site visit in spring 2006
to a High Growth grantee, Labor found that the grantee did not
accurately track participant information and reported incorrect
information on expenditures, among other things. As of September 2007
Labor said these findings had been resolved (see table 4).
Table 4: Status of Risk-Based Monitored Grants as of September 30,
2007:
Status: Findings resolved;
High Growth: 38;
Community Based: 13.
Status: Findings not yet resolved;
High Growth: 10;
Community Based: 5.
Status: No findings;
High Growth: 31;
Community Based: 21.
Status: Total monitored;
High Growth: 79;
Community Based: 39.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants monitoring
data.
[End of table]
As another part of Labor's risk-based monitoring strategy, Labor's
internal requirements specify that Labor staff are to make site visits
to all new grantees, including High Growth, Community Based, and WIRED,
within 12 months of beginning grant activity and to new grantees rated
as "at risk" within 3 months. Labor officials said they consider "new
grantee" site visits to be orientation visits and had not made visits
to most new grantees. They said they broadly interpret this requirement
to include a variety of methods of contact and generally use
teleconference and video conference training sessions rather than site
visits, based on the availability of resources. For example, Labor
calls each new Community Based grantee to schedule new grantee
training. Labor is taking steps to update its internal requirements to
better reflect the purpose of the new grantee monitoring.
Labor Is Planning to Develop a Risk-Based Approach for Monitoring WIRED
Grants, but It Has Not Yet Done So:
Labor officials said they are developing a WIRED grant assessment tool,
but it is not finalized. They plan to implement it in spring 2008;
however, the department has not developed a schedule for its use. Labor
officials explained that a specific tool is needed for monitoring WIRED
grants because the site visit guide used for most other Labor grants
would not be appropriate for WIRED grants. One reason is that WIRED
grants are awarded to states but are generally administered by other
entities. For example, Labor awarded a $15 million WIRED grant to the
state of Colorado, but programs funded by the grant are primarily
administered by the not-for-profit Metro Denver Economic Development
Corporation.
Conclusions:
Seven years after awarding the first grants, Labor is in the process of
evaluating the High Growth and WIRED initiatives and has plans to
evaluate the Community Based initiative but will be challenged to
evaluate the effect of the almost $900 million spent on the grant
initiatives. Because of poor planning, the agency will not be able to
perform the kind of comprehensive impact evaluation that would have
been possible if it had been collecting data consistent with that
collected for other WIA programs all along. Because Labor lacks such
data it will be challenged in drawing strong conclusions from its
planned evaluations. Until Labor collects consistent outcome data, such
as the common measures, that would allow comparison of impact of each
of the three grant initiatives to those of other Labor programs, Labor
cannot know the extent to which the initiatives improve employment
outcomes, if at all.
The vast majority of High Growth grants--more than $263 million--were
awarded noncompetitively using inconsistent selection criteria under a
process that was not adequately documented. As a result there is little
assurance that the grants selected were the best possible projects.
Although Labor currently awards grants under all three grant
initiatives competitively, the fact that Labor used inconsistent
selection criteria that changed over time and did not adequately
document the process when awarding High Growth grants noncompetitively
raises questions about how Labor uses this method of awarding grants.
This is a critical concern given that Labor could again award millions
of dollars of noncompetitive grants. While it has taken steps to
strengthen the noncompetitive process, the newly developed procedures
do not explicitly identify the statutory program requirements for which
compliance should be documented. Finally, the absence of a risk-based
monitoring approach for WIRED puts Labor at risk of not knowing if the
millions of dollars awarded to WIRED grantees have been used for the
purposes they are intended.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To determine the impact of the three grant initiatives, ensure that the
best possible projects are selected, and improve accountability of
grant funds, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor take the
following three actions:
* Take steps to ensure that the department can evaluate the impact of
the initiatives so that it can draw strong conclusions based on its
evaluations, such as following through with plans to collect consistent
data, integrating the initiatives into its overall research agenda with
relevant performance goals and indicators, and including these
initiatives in its assessment of the impact of WIA services.
* Direct the Employment and Training Administration to identify the
statutory program requirements for which compliance must be documented
when awarding noncompetitive grants.
* Develop and implement a risk-based monitoring approach for WIRED and
a schedule for its use.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of the report to Labor for review and comment. In
response to our first recommendation, Labor said it has taken initial
steps to evaluate the impact of the initiatives and disagreed with our
assertion that the initiatives are not integrated into its strategic
plan. We agree that the agency has taken initial steps, but these do
not ensure that they will be able to assess the initiatives' impact. We
do not dispute that the strategic plan mentions the initiatives;
however, we found that both the strategic and research plans do not tie
the High Growth or WIRED initiatives to performance goals, making it
unclear what criteria Labor will use to evaluate their effectiveness.
In response to the first recommendation, Labor also disputed a claim
that we did not make, namely that the initiatives belong in the
assessment of WIA services.
In response to our second recommendation, Labor said it recently
developed procedures to document noncompetitive grant proposals'
compliance with statutory requirements. In its comments and in its
corrective action plan to address Labor's inspector general's findings,
Labor noted that its new procedures for reviewing noncompetitive grant
proposals included determining if they met these requirements and
requires documenting this. Labor's inspector general is in the process
of reviewing these corrective actions to determine their adequacy. Our
review of the documents supporting these new procedures found no
specific reference to statutory program requirements against which
proposals would be checked for compliance. We revised our draft
recommendation to clarify that we are asking Labor to identify the
statutory program requirements for which compliance should be
documented.
In response to our third recommendation, Labor said it plans to
implement a risk-based monitoring approach for the WIRED initiative.
Given that Labor has not yet done so, we stand by our recommendation
that they follow through with this effort.
In its comments, Labor disagreed with several of our findings and
stated that:
* the initiatives were not considered research projects and were not
designed to compare participant outcomes with the participant outcomes
achieved under the WIA formula program;
* workforce boards face no challenges that cannot be overcome in
pursuing demand driven practices that are encouraged under the three
initiatives;
* it is not improper to modify criteria for selecting grantees when the
agency assessment of workforce needs changes; and:
* there are no specific rules for documenting the decision-making
process for noncompetitive grants, but agreed that additional
documentation would be valuable and indicated that it has taken steps
to require such documentation:
While we recognize that the grants awarded under these initiatives were
not research projects per se, many were funded as pilots and
demonstrations and by statute were required to have an evaluative
component. Although Labor says that it did not intend to compare the
initiative participants' outcomes with those of participants in WIA
formula programs, its own documents suggest that these types of
comparisons are warranted. We stand by our findings that workforce
boards face challenges implementing demand-driven approaches. Labor
acknowledged their efforts to provide workforce boards with assistance
in this area. Regarding selection of noncompetitive, High Growth
grantees, the fact remains that Labor could not provide specific
criteria used for selecting these grantees and told us that these
criteria changed over time. Although Labor's statement that no rules
exist for documenting decision making runs counter to federal
principles for internal controls, it indicated that it is taking steps
to address this issue.
Labor officials also provided technical comments that we incorporated
into the report where appropriate. Labor's written comments are
reproduced in appendix IV.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor,
relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. We
also will make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be made available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Office 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:
George A. Scott:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Our objectives were to examine (1) the intent of the grant initiatives
and the extent to which Labor will be able to assess their effects; (2)
the extent to which the process used competition, was adequately
documented, and included key players; and (3) what Labor is doing to
monitor individual grantee compliance with grant requirements.
To determine the intent of the grant initiatives and the extent to
which Labor was able to assess their effects, we reviewed documents,
including grant proposals and quarterly reports, Labor's strategic plan
to identify plans for research, and a study on the implementation and
sustainability of the early High Growth grants.[Footnote 34] We
reviewed available solicitations for grant applications to understand
the purpose and goals of the grants and to identify the kinds of
outcome data that Labor expected from grantees--three for competitive
High Growth grants, three Community Based grants, and two WIRED grants.
In addition, we interviewed the appropriate Labor officials and also
public workforce experts from the Upjohn Institute, the Council on
Competitiveness, the National Governors Association, the National
Network of Sector Partners, the Urban Institute, the National
Association of State Workforce Agencies, and the National Association
of Workforce Boards to obtain their views on the grant initiatives and
workforce system activities. We also obtained a list of all High
Growth, Community Based, and WIRED grants awarded between fiscal year
2001 and 2007 to determine the amounts, the source of funding, and the
timing of the awards. We assessed the reliability of the individual
grant data Labor provided by (1) reviewing the data for obvious errors
and completeness, (2) reviewing related documentation, and (3)
interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this report. In addition, we reviewed the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA) and the American Competitiveness Act (ACWIA), the two primary
laws under which the funding for these grants was authorized.
We also conducted site visits. Out of a universe of about 340 grantees
provided by Labor at the time of our review, we selected eight for more
in-depth study, conducted semi-structured interviews of grantees and
state and local workforce officials, and reviewed grantees' proposals
and recent quarterly reports. We visited six grantees in five states--
Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, New York, and Washington and
contacted two additional grantees by telephone in Illinois and
Pennsylvania. Four criteria were used to select these grantees: (1)
grant type--we selected an industry/business representative, a
community college, and a representative of the public workforce system
for High Growth grantees; three community colleges for the Community
Based grantees; and two regional grantees for WIRED; (2) geographic
location--the sites represented different regions of the country; (3)
time period--for the High Growth grantees, we selected two that
received a grant through the noncompetitive process and had been
operating 3 or more years and one grantee that competed for its award
and was 2 years old; all of the Community Based were 2-year-old grants;
and the WIRED grantees represented the first generation, which were
only 1 year old; and (4) award amount--we selected grantees with awards
that exceeded $1 million.
In examining the extent to which the process used competition, was
adequately documented, and included key players, we reviewed documents
regarding the processes used to award both competitive and
noncompetitive grants, and interviewed officials. We also analyzed data
on the timing, numbers, and amounts of the High Growth grants and
whether they were awarded competitively and noncompetitively. To
understand Labor's internal procedures and requirements for awarding
grants, we reviewed the Department of Labor's Manual Series guidance
for awarding noncompetitive grants, its guidelines for submitting a
noncompetitive grant proposal, and several solicitations for grant
applications, which are used to announce competitive grant proposals.
In addition, we reviewed recommendations from the Domestic Working
Group Grant Accountability Project's report on awarding federal grants
and the Standards for Internal Control. We also reviewed the Federal
Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act to determine the legal requirements
for awarding noncompetitive grants. Finally, we reviewed Labor's
inspector general's report on High Growth grants for findings
concerning the procedures for awarding these grants noncompetitively.
Labor also provided rosters of invitees and participants to its
executive and solutions forums, which we analyzed to determine the
numbers of state and local workforce participants at each of the
forums.
To address what Labor is doing to monitor the performance of grantees,
we interviewed Labor officials regarding the monitoring process and
reviewed a list of High Growth and Community Based grants that had been
monitored. We reviewed examples of six grantee monitoring reports and
the single audit report of one grantee we contacted. We also reviewed
Labor's monitoring procedures, but we did not assess their
effectiveness. In addition, we reviewed Labor's inspector general's
reports on grantee performance data and on the single audit process. We
conducted our work from May 2007 to May 2008 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II High Growth, Community Based, and WIRED Grantees through
September 30, 2007, by Initiative and State:
Table 5: High Growth Grantees:
Recipient name: State of Alaska, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development;
Total award amount: $7,000,000;
Grantee state: AK;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Energy;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: University of Alaska;
Total award amount: $499,988;
Grantee state: AK;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Alabama Department of Economic And Community Affairs;
Total award amount: $3,548,115;
Grantee state: AL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Aerospace Development Center;
Total award amount: $1,898,820;
Grantee state: AL;
Other states where activities take place: CA, FL, TX, CO, CT, IL, NY,
OH, VA, WA, WI;
Sector: Aerospace;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Alabama Department of Economic & Community Affairs;
Total award amount: $3,000,000;
Grantee state: AL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: State of Arkansas - Department of Workforce Services;
Total award amount: $5,935,402;
Grantee state: AR;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced Manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Arkansas Department of Workforce Services;
Total award amount: $1,350,665;
Grantee state: AR;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Transportation;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Jobpath, Inc.;
Total award amount: $276,393;
Grantee state: AZ;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Biotechnology;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: State of Arizona Department of Commerce;
Total award amount: $3,403,168;
Grantee state: AZ;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Information Technology;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: League for Innovation in the Community College;
Total award amount: $500,000;
Grantee state: AZ;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Alameda County Workforce Investment Board;
Total award amount: $2,000,000;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Biotechnology;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: San Bernardino Community College District;
Total award amount: $1,618,334;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: San Diego Workforce Partnership, Inc.;
Total award amount: $2,510,117;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Biotechnology;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Rancho Santiago Community College District;
Total award amount: $187,939;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: MO;
Sector: Geospatial;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: County of Orange/OC Workforce Investment Board;
Total award amount: $1,000,000;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Biotechnology;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: City of Los Angeles/Community Development Department;
Total award amount: $1,196,000;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Los Angeles Valley College;
Total award amount: $1,500,000;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: International Association of Nanotechnology;
Total award amount: $1,500,000;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Colorado Department of Labor & Employment;
Total award amount: $1,024,580;
Grantee state: CO;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Colorado Department of Labor & Employment;
Total award amount: $1,600,000;
Grantee state: CO;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Pueblo Community College;
Total award amount: $658,519; [Empty];
Grantee state: CO;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Geospatial Information & Technology Association;
Total award amount: $695,362;
Grantee state: CO;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Geospatial;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: The Workplace, Inc.;
Total award amount: $2,000,000;
Grantee state: CT;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: The State of Connecticut, Department of Economic &
Community Development;
Total award amount: $2,748,405;
Grantee state: CT;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Financial services;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: CBIA Education Foundation;
Total award amount: $1,775,030;
Grantee state: CT;
Other states where activities take place: MA;
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Capital Workforce Partners;
Total award amount: $506,836;
Grantee state: CT;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: National Alliance of Business;
Total award amount: $813,000;
Grantee state: DC;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce;
Total award amount: $136,000;
Grantee state: DC;
Other states where activities take place: CA, FL;
Sector: Automotive;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Home Builders Institute;
Total award amount: $4,268,454;
Grantee state: DC;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Construction;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: National Foundation for the Advancement of Elder and
Disabled Care in America;
Total award amount: $104,929;
Grantee state: DC;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: National Retail Federation Foundation;
Total award amount: 99,900;
Grantee state: DC;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Retail;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: National Retail Federation Foundation;
Total award amount: $5,065,000;
Grantee state: DC;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Retail;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Center for Energy Workforce Development;
Total award amount: $98,270;
Grantee state: DC;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Energy;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Arch Training Center, Inc.;
Total award amount: $269,193;
Grantee state: DC;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Financial services;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: The Association of Career Management Firms
International;
Total award amount: $60,000;
Grantee state: DC;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise;
Total award amount: $99,635;
Grantee state: DC;
Other states where activities take place: AL;
Sector: Information technology;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Council on Competitiveness;
Total award amount: $99,999;
Grantee state: DC;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole Source.
Recipient name: Association of Career Firms North America;
Total award amount: $99,000;
Grantee state: DC;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole Source.
Recipient name: National Association of Workforce Boards;
Total award amount: $200,000;
Grantee state: DC;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole Source.
Recipient name: Delaware Workforce Investment Board;
Total award amount: $200,697;
Grantee state: DE;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Biotechnology;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Brevard Community College;
Total award amount: $88,252;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Aerospace;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Florida Space Research Institute, Inc.;
Total award amount: $355,628;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Aerospace;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Workforce Alliance, Incorporated;
Total award amount: $2,325,303;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Biotechnology;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Agency for Workforce Innovation;
Total award amount: $1,261,997;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Florida International University Board of Trustees,
Office of Sponsored Research Administration;
Total award amount: $1,419,266;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Miami Dade College;
Total award amount: $1,000,000;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Biotechnology;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation;
Total award amount: $793,000;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Financial services;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Georgia Department of Labor;
Total award amount: $724,659;
Grantee state: GA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: UPS;
Total award amount: $1,789,970;
Grantee state: GA;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Transportation;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: University of Hawaii;
Total award amount: $1,400,000;
Grantee state: HI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Construction;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Indian Hills Community College;
Total award amount: $996,250;
Grantee state: IA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Biotechnology;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Western Iowa Tech Community College;
Total award amount: $1,498,548;
Grantee state: IA;
Other states where activities take place: NE, SD;
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Iowa Workforce Development;
Total award amount: $850,000;
Grantee state: IA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Illinois Department of Employment Security;
Total award amount: $5,086,538;
Grantee state: IL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Council for Adult and Experimental Learning Center;
Total award amount: $2,555,706;
Grantee state: IL;
Other states where activities take place: TX, MO, SD, WA;
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Comptia;
Total award amount: $2,818,795;
Grantee state: IL;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Information technology;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Illinois State University;
Total award amount: $5,774,420;
Grantee state: IL;
Other states where activities take place: OH;
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Chicago Women in Trades;
Total award amount: $2,092,343;
Grantee state: IL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Construction;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: National Congress of Parents and Teachers;
Total award amount: $480,000;
Grantee state: IL;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Indianapolis Private Industry Council, Inc.;
Total award amount: $1,000,000;
Grantee state: IN;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Biotechnology;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana;
Total award amount: $1,860,515;
Grantee state: IN;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: The Manufacturing Institute;
Total award amount: $498,520;
Grantee state: KS;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Neosho County Community College;
Total award amount: 495,600;
Grantee state: KS;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Henderson-Henderson County Chamber of Commerce;
Total award amount: $2,991,840;
Grantee state: KY;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Catalyst Learning;
Total award amount: $2,000,000;
Grantee state: KY;
Other states where activities take place: IN, MD, VA, OH, PA;
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: West Kentucky Workforce Investment Board;
Total award amount: $3,025,260;
Grantee state: KY;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Energy;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: The Kentucky Community and Technical College System;
Total award amount: $2,480,852;
Grantee state: KY;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Automotive;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Louisiana, Department of Labor Employment and Training;
Total award amount: $3,000,000;
Grantee state: LA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Board of Supervisors of Community and Technical
Colleges;
Total award amount: $4,998,800;
Grantee state: LA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Construction;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Jobs for the Future, Inc.;
Total award amount: $927,068;
Grantee state: MA;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Jobs for the Future, Inc.;
Total award amount: $4,190,052;
Grantee state: MA;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Youth Build USA;
Total award amount: $18,202,600;
Grantee state: MA;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Construction;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Massachusetts Biotechnology Education Foundation;
Total award amount: $1,372,250;
Grantee state: MA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Biotechnology;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation;
Total award amount: $1,500,000;
Grantee state: MD;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation;
Total award amount: $1,000,000;
Grantee state: MD;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation;
Total award amount: $3,237,411;
Grantee state: MD;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Community Transportation Development Center;
Total award amount: $2,000,000;
Grantee state: MD;
Other states where activities take place: DC, GA, OH, OR, PA;
Sector: Transportation;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Paul Hall Institute of Human Development, Inc.;
Total award amount: $2,499,618;
Grantee state: MD;
Other states where activities take place: HI, AK, Gulf Coast;
Sector: Transportation;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: 360vu Research and Education Foundation;
Total award amount: $2,000,322;
Grantee state: MD;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Maine Department of Economic And Community Development;
Total award amount: $2,996,724;
Grantee state: ME;
Other states where activities take place: CT, MA, NH, RI, VT;
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Automotive Youth Educational Systems, Inc.;
Total award amount: $600,000;
Grantee state: MI;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Automotive;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Automotive Youth Educational Systems, Inc.;
Total award amount: $2,200,000;
Grantee state: MI;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Automotive;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: CVS Regional Learning Center;
Total award amount: $1,757,981;
Grantee state: MI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Northwest Michigan Council of Governments;
Total award amount: $500,000;
Grantee state: MI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Downriver Community Conference Retraining;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: MI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Automotive;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: St. Louis City Workforce Investment Board;
Total award amount: $1,499,998;
Grantee state: MO;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Carpenters' Joint Apprenticeship Program;
Total award amount: $2,187,107;
Grantee state: MO;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Construction;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: University of Missouri - Columbia;
Total award amount: $2,305,995;
Grantee state: MO;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Energy;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: University of Southern Mississippi-School of
Engineering Tech;
Total award amount: $1,565,227;
Grantee state: MS;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Geospatial;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Mississippi Department of Employment Security;
Total award amount: $3,000,000;
Grantee state: MS;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Mississippi Department of Employment Security;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: MS;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Construction;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: MHA Health Research & Educational Foundation;
Total award amount: $500,000;
Grantee state: MS;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Forsyth Tech Community College;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: NC;
Other states where activities take place: NH, IA, WA, CA;
Sector: Biotechnology;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Forsyth Tech Community College;
Total award amount: $754,146;
Grantee state: NC;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Biotechnology;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: North Carolina Department of Commerce;
Total award amount: $1,500,000;
Grantee state: NC;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Central Community College;
Total award amount: $1,639,403;
Grantee state: NE;
Other states where activities take place: SD, WY, IO, CO, KS;
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: San Juan College;
Total award amount: $2,113,127;
Grantee state: NM;
Other states where activities take place: UT, AZ, CO, WY;
Sector: Energy;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Southern Nevada Workforce Investment Board;
Total award amount: $1,121,166;
Grantee state: NV;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Hospitality;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Girl Scouts of the USA;
Total award amount: $200,000;
Grantee state: NY;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Automotive;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Excelsior College;
Total award amount: $516,154;
Grantee state: NY;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute;
Total award amount: $999,902;
Grantee state: NY;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Orange County Workforce Investment Board;
Total award amount: $1,048,300;
Grantee state: NY;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Research Foundation of CUNY;
Total award amount: $494,386;
Grantee state: NY;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Hospitality;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Rochester Institute of Technology;
Total award amount: $1,158,983;
Grantee state: NY;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Workforce Investment Board of Herkimer, Madison and
Oneida Counties;
Total award amount: $497,576;
Grantee state: NY;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: 1199 SEIU League Grant Corporation;
Total award amount: $192,500;
Grantee state: NY;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Berger Health System;
Total award amount: $200,000;
Grantee state: OH;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Ohio Department of Job and Family Services;
Total award amount: $4,296,624;
Grantee state: OH;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Ohio Board of Regents;
Total award amount: $1,178,425;
Grantee state: OH;
Other states where activities take place: FL, LA;
Sector: Financial services;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Techsolve, Inc.;
Total award amount: $1,464,670;
Grantee state: OH;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Lake Land Community College;
Total award amount: $333,485;
Grantee state: OH;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Biotechnology;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Lorain County Community College;
Total award amount: $2,599,979;
Grantee state: OH;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: High Plains Technology Center;
Total award amount: $1,495,487;
Grantee state: OK;
Other states where activities take place: KS, TX;
Sector: Energy;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: State of Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology
Education;
Total award amount: $2,363,539;
Grantee state: OK;
Other states where activities take place: TX, KS, AK;
Sector: Energy;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: State of Oklahoma;
Total award amount: $1,500,000;
Grantee state: OK;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Columbia Gorge Community College;
Total award amount: $1,250,000;
Grantee state: OR;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Oregon Manufacturing Extension Partnership;
Total award amount: $3,199,709;
Grantee state: OR;
Other states where activities take place: WA, ID;
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce
Development;
Total award amount: $300,000;
Grantee state: OR;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: William F. Goodling Regional Advanced Skills Center;
Total award amount: $990,125;
Grantee state: PA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Geospatial;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Pennsylvania Automotive Association Foundation;
Total award amount: $95,000;
Grantee state: PA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Automotive;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Delaware Valley Industrial Resource Center;
Total award amount: $3,000,000;
Grantee state: PA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse;
Total award amount: $2,433,159;
Grantee state: PA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Biotechnology;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Lancaster County Workforce Investment Board;
Total award amount: $1,354,585;
Grantee state: PA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Pennsylvania Workforce Investment Board;
Total award amount: $6,378,000;
Grantee state: PA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: The Pennsylvania State University;
Total award amount: $503,210;
Grantee state: PA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Energy;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: International Association of Jewish Vocational
Services;
Total award amount: $1,000,000;
Grantee state: PA;
Other states where activities take place: CA, NJ;
Sector: Financial services;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Philadelphia Workforce Investment Board;
Total award amount: $1,500,000;
Grantee state: PA;
Other states where activities take place: NJ, DE;
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Johnson & Wales University;
Total award amount: $977,992;
Grantee state: RI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Hospitality;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: American College of the Building Arts;
Total award amount: $2,750,000;
Grantee state: SC;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Construction;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Claflin University;
Total award amount: $750,000;
Grantee state: SC;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Biotechnology;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society;
Total award amount: $1,877,517;
Grantee state: SD;
Other states where activities take place: ND, MN;
Sector: Healthcare;
ward method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Institute for GIS Studies;
Total award amount: $2,000,000;
Grantee state: TN;
Other states where activities take place: NC, MS;
Sector: Geospatial;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Hospital Corporation of America;
Total award amount: $4,000,000;
Grantee state: TN;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Texas Workforce Commission;
Total award amount: $1,453,115;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Eastfield College;
Total award amount: $837,424;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Automotive;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Houston-Galveston Area Council;
Total award amount: $1,000,000;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Aerospace;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Lower Rio Grande Valley Workforce Development Board;
Total award amount: $2,000,000;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Community Learning Center, Inc.;
Total award amount: $1,168,400;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Aerospace;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Community Learning Center, Inc.;
Total award amount: $2,779,408;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Aerospace;
ward method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Valley Initiative for Development And Advancement;
Total award amount: $4,000,000;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Capital Investing in the Development & Education of
Adults, Inc.;
Total award amount: $224,088;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Temple College;
Total award amount: $920,495;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Biotechnology;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: United Regional Health Care System;
Total award amount: $846,325;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare; Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Texas Workforce Commission;
Total award amount: $3,000,000;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: North Central Texas Workforce Development Board;
Total award amount: $1,562,382;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Management And Training Corporation;
Total award amount: $1,499,686;
Grantee state: UT;
Other states where activities take place: PA, OH, IL;
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: University of Utah;
Total award amount: $871,707;
Grantee state: UT;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: College of Eastern Utah;
Total award amount: $2,737,804;
Grantee state: UT;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Energy;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Kidz Online, Inc.;
Total award amount: $1,000,000;
Grantee state: VA;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Geospatial; Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: National Institute For Automotive Service Excellence;
Total award amount: $300,000;
Grantee state: VA;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Automotive;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Greater Peninsula Workforce Development Consortium;
Total award amount: $1,965,000;
Grantee state: VA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: The National Institute for Metalworking Skills, Inc.;
Total award amount: $1,956,700;
Grantee state: VA;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: The National Institute for Metalworking Skills, Inc.;
Total award amount: $939,815;
Grantee state: VA;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Skills USA VICA;
Total award amount: $142,000;
Grantee state: VA;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Non-sector specific;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Automotive Retailing Today;
Total award amount: $150,000;
Grantee state: VA;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Automotive;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Virginia Biotechnology Association;
Total award amount: $1,494,369;
Grantee state: VA;
Other states where activities take place: MD;
Sector: Advanced manufacturing;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Associated General Contractors;
Total award amount: $235,500;
Grantee state: VA;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Construction;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Vermont Department of Labor;
Total award amount: $570,688;
Grantee state: VT;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Information technology;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Shoreline Community College;
Total award amount: $1,496,680;
Grantee state: WA;
Other states where activities take place: AK, ID, MT, OR, WA;
Sector: Automotive;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Edmonds Community College;
Total award amount: $1,475,045;
Grantee state: WA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Aerospace;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Tacoma-Pierce County Employment & Training Consortium;
Total award amount: $736,147;
Grantee state: WA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: Gateway Technical College;
Total award amount: $900,000;
Grantee state: WI;
Other states where activities take place: National;
Sector: Automotive;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee;
Total award amount: $1,365,101;
Grantee state: WI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Competitive.
Recipient name: Wisconsin Healthcare Workforce Network;
Total award amount: $215,600;
Grantee state: WI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Healthcare;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: West Virginia University Research Corporation on Behalf
of West Virginia University;
Total award amount: $3,000,000;
Grantee state: WV;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Energy;
Award method: Sole source.
Recipient name: State of Wyoming;
Total award amount: $2,400,000;
Grantee state: WY;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Energy; Award method: Sole source.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data.
[End of table]
Table 6: Community Based Grantees:
Recipient name: University of Alaska - Fairbanks Tanana Valley Campus;
Total award amount: $1,994,819;
Grantee state: AK;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Calhoun Community College;
Total award amount: $2,465,656;
Grantee state: AL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Enterprise-Ozark Community College;
Total award amount: $1,636,688;
Grantee state: AL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: George C. Wallace Community College;
Total award amount: $1,921,841;
Grantee state: AL;
Other states where activities take place: FL, GA.
Recipient name: George C. Wallace Community College at Hanceville;
Total award amount: $1,600,606;
Grantee state: AL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: H. Councill Trenholm State Technical College;
Total award amount: $3,018,928;
Grantee state: AL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Northwest-Shoals Community College;
Total award amount: $1,656,636;
Grantee state: AL;
Other states where activities take place: TN, MS.
Recipient name: Snead State Community College;
Total award amount: $1,560,550;
Grantee state: AL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Bevill State Community College;
Total award amount: $1,909,973;
Grantee state: AL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: H. Councill Trenholm State Technical College;
Total award amount: $2,300,000;
Grantee state: AL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Northwest Arkansas Community College;
Total award amount: $1,895,564;
Grantee state: AR;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Pulaski Technical College;
Total award amount: $1,271,550;
Grantee state: AR;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: UAM College of Technology - Mcgehee;
Total award amount: $1,620,000;
Grantee state: AR;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: South Arkansas Community College;
Total award amount: $1,573,688;
Grantee state: AR;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Rich Mountain Community College;
Total award amount: $2,349,207;
Grantee state: AR;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: University of Arkansas Community College at Batesville;
Total award amount: $1,992,274;
Grantee state: AR;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Arizona Western College;
Total award amount: $1,996,654;
Grantee state: AZ;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Central Arizona College;
Total award amount: $1,985,204;
Grantee state: AZ;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Yavapai College;
Total award amount: $1,394,475;
Grantee state: AZ;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Cypress Community College;
Total award amount: $1,663,164;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Santa Monica College;
Total award amount: $1,393,442;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Solano Community College;
Total award amount: $1,260,000;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Board of Governors, California Community Colleges;
Total award amount: $1,992,481;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: West Hills Community College District;
Total award amount: $1,999,753;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: County of Merced;
Total award amount: $1,850,443;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Contra Costa Community College;
Total award amount: $1,484,918;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Aims Community College;
Total award amount: $818,691;
Grantee state: CO;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Otero Junior College;
Total award amount: $998,453;
Grantee state: CO;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Trinidad State Junior College;
Total award amount: $1,496,673;
Grantee state: CO;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Manchester Community College;
Total award amount: $2,147,325;
Grantee state: CT;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Manchester Community College;
Total award amount: $2,174,000;
Grantee state: CT;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Broward Community College;
Total award amount: 1,603,627;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Edison College;
Total award amount: $1,986,371;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Palm Beach Community College;
Total award amount: $1,561,713;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Pensacola Junior College;
Total award amount: $1,329,145;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Santa Fe Community College;
Total award amount: $1,072,339;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: St. Petersburg College;
Total award amount: $1,653,765;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Valencia Community College;
Total award amount: $1,999,392;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Broward Community College;
Total award amount: $1,998,621;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: St. Petersburg College;
Total award amount: $1,246,869;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Florida Community College at Jacksonville;
Total award amount: $1,999,835;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Polk Community College;
Total award amount: $2,000,000;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Darton College;
Total award amount: $2,484,456;
Grantee state: GA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Georgia Perimeter College;
Total award amount: $1,513,281;
Grantee state: GA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Savannah Technical College;
Total award amount: $1,298,411;
Grantee state: GA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Atlanta Technical College;
Total award amount: $2,102,900;
Grantee state: GA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Athens Technical College;
Total award amount: $1,996,326;
Grantee state: GA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Northwest Iowa Community College;
Total award amount: $1,740,322;
Grantee state: IA;
Other states where activities take place: MN, SD, NE.
Recipient name: Eastern Iowa Community College District;
Total award amount: $1,564,012;
Grantee state: IA;
Other states where activities take place: IL.
Recipient name: College of Southern Idaho;
Total award amount: $1,459,411;
Grantee state: ID;
Other states where activities take place: NV, OR, UT, NY.
Recipient name: Idaho State University;
Total award amount: $1,996,958;
Grantee state: ID;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Lake Land College;
Total award amount: $863,321;
Grantee state: IL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: College of Dupage;
Total award amount: $1,422,342;
Grantee state: IL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Illinois Eastern Community Colleges, District #529;
Total award amount: $859,214;
Grantee state: IL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana;
Total award amount: $2,572,436;
Grantee state: IN;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: North Central Kansas Technical College;
Total award amount: $1,600,000;
Grantee state: KS;
Other states where activities take place: MO.
Recipient name: Dodge City Community College;
Total award amount: $1,926,238;
Grantee state: KS;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Madisonville Community College;
Total award amount: $1,210,008;
Grantee state: KY;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Owensboro Community and Technical College;
Total award amount: $824,779;
Grantee state: KY;
Other states where activities take place: IN.
Recipient name: Bluegrass Community and Technical College;
Total award amount: $1,416,947;
Grantee state: KY;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: L.E. Fletcher Technical Community College;
Total award amount: $3,600,768;
Grantee state: LA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Southern University at Shreveport;
Total award amount: $1,992,240;
Grantee state: LA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Middlesex Community College at Bedford;
Total award amount: $853,736;
Grantee state: MA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Middlesex Community College;
Total award amount: $1,886,569;
Grantee state: MA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Hagerstown Community College;
Total award amount: $1,649,348;
Grantee state: MD; Other states where activities take place: PA, WV.
Recipient name: Anne Arundel Community College;
Total award amount: $2,077,137;
Grantee state: MD;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Frederick Community College;
Total award amount: $1,997,776;
Grantee state: MD;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: The Community College of Baltimore County;
Total award amount: $2,585,471;
Grantee state: MD;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Kennebec Valley Community College;
Total award amount: $955,831;
Grantee state: ME;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Southern Maine Community College;
Total award amount: $2,214,394;
Grantee state: ME;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Southwestern Michigan College;
Total award amount: $634,677;
Grantee state: MI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Alpena Community College;
Total award amount: $1,941,935;
Grantee state: MI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Berrien Cass Van Buren Michigan Works!;
Total award amount: $1,937,112;
Grantee state: MI;
Other states where activities take place: IN.
Recipient name: Washtenaw Community College;
Total award amount: $150,357;
Grantee state: MI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Riverland Community College;
Total award amount: $2,219,453;
Grantee state: MN;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: The Junior College District of Kansas City - Missouri;
Total award amount: $1,970,252;
Grantee state: MO;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Texas County Technical Institute;
Total award amount: $1,949,954;
Grantee state: MO;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Coahoma Community College;
Total award amount: $2,250,560;
Grantee state: MS;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College;
Total award amount: $1,928,457;
Grantee state: MS;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Itawamba Community College;
Total award amount: $1,951,138;
Grantee state: MS;
Other states where activities take place: AL, TN.
Recipient name: Montana State University - Billings College of
Technology;
Total award amount: $1,980,042;
Grantee state: MT;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Montana State University-Billings College of
Technology;
Total award amount: $1,998,885;
Grantee state: MT;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Trustees of Haywood Community College;
Total award amount: $1,696,974;
Grantee state: NC;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: United Tribes Technical College;
Total award amount: $1,463,996;
Grantee state: ND;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Central Community College;
Total award amount: $1,910,185;
Grantee state: NE;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Northeast Community College;
Total award amount: $1,999,999;
Grantee state: NE;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: NH Community Technical College - Manchester/Stratham;
Total award amount: $1,999,039;
Grantee state: NH;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Passaic County Community College;
Total award amount: $1,608,948;
Grantee state: NJ;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Gloucester County College;
Total award amount: $2,000,000;
Grantee state: NJ;
Other states where activities take place: PA, DE.
Recipient name: Cumberland County College;
Total award amount: $1,632,530;
Grantee state: NJ;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Clovis Community College;
Total award amount: $1,270,705;
Grantee state: NM;
Other states where activities take place: TX.
Recipient name: Mesalands Community College;
Total award amount: $2,000,000;
Grantee state: NM;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Suffolk County Community College;
Total award amount: $2,377,114;
Grantee state: NY;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: CUNY Kingsborough Community College;
Total award amount: $1,620,987;
Grantee state: NY;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Cuyahoga Community College;
Total award amount: $1,863,833;
Grantee state: OH;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Cincinnati State Technical And Community College;
Total award amount: $1,493,299;
Grantee state: OH;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Edison State Community College;
Total award amount: $2,030,387;
Grantee state: OH;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: City of Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Workforce Area 3;
Total award amount: $2,289,449;
Grantee state: OH;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Eastern Oklahoma State College, Inc.;
Total award amount: $1,786,780;
Grantee state: OK;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Chemeketa Community College;
Total award amount: 2,900,000;
Grantee state: OR;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Blue Mountain Community College;
Total award amount: $1,220,423;
Grantee state: OR;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Clackamas Community College;
Total award amount: $848,486;
Grantee state: OR;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Lane Community College;
Total award amount: $1,969,923;
Grantee state: OR;
Other states where activities take place: ID.
Recipient name: Harrisburg Area Community College;
Total award amount: $2,007,740;
Grantee state: PA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Northampton County Area Community College;
Total award amount: $713,025;
Grantee state: PA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Montgomery County Community College;
Total award amount: $1,371,264;
Grantee state: PA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Community College of Rhode Island;
Total award amount: $1,826,689;
Grantee state: RI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Midlands Technical College;
Total award amount: $1,946,563;
Grantee state: SC;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Cleveland State Community College;
Total award amount: $861,840;
Grantee state: TN;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Jackson State Community College;
Total award amount: $1,941,632;
Grantee state: TN;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Southwest Tennessee Community College;
Total award amount: $1,829,320;
Grantee state: TN;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Walters State Community College;
Total award amount: $1,939,796;
Grantee state: TN;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Alamo Community College District;
Total award amount: $1,344,569;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Amarillo College;
Total award amount: $1,386,525;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: College of the Mainland;
Total award amount: $1,909,380;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Midland College;
Total award amount: $617,291;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: North Central Texas College;
Total award amount: $1,999,564;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Southwest Texas Junior College;
Total award amount: $1,929,645;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Texas State Technical College Harlingen;
Total award amount: $2,064,161;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: The Victoria County Junior College District;
Total award amount: $1,980,011;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Del Mar College;
Total award amount: $1,982,812;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Odessa College;
Total award amount: $1,751,178;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: South Texas College;
Total award amount: $708,476;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Lamar State College - Orange;
Total award amount: $1,526,700;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: College of Eastern Utah - San Juan Campus;
Total award amount: $1,260,893;
Grantee state: UT;
Other states where activities take place: AZ.
Recipient name: Salt Lake Community College;
Total award amount: $1,997,759;
Grantee state: UT;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Blue Ridge Community College;
Total award amount: $1,937,786;
Grantee state: VA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Northern Virginia Community College;
Total award amount: $1,221,062;
Grantee state: VA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Piedmont Virginia Community College - Division of
Workforce Services;
Total award amount: $1,479,497;
Grantee state: VA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Central Virginia Community College;
Total award amount: $1,249,527;
Grantee state: VA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Mountain Empire Community College;
Total award amount: $1,999,266;
Grantee state: VA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Columbia Basin College;
Total award amount: $1,992,675;
Grantee state: WA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Seattle Central Community College;
Total award amount: $2,762,496;
Grantee state: WA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Whatcom Community College;
Total award amount: $2,145,400;
Grantee state: WA;
Other states where activities take place: AK.
Recipient name: Everett Community College;
Total award amount: $2,000,000;
Grantee state: WA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Waukesha County Technical College;
Total award amount: $2,307,306;
Grantee state: WI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: College of Menominee Nation;
Total award amount: $2,000,000;
Grantee state: WI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Madison Area Technical College;
Total award amount: $1,961,110;
Grantee state: WI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Milwaukee Area Technical College;
Total award amount: $1,999,999;
Grantee state: WI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: West Virginia State Community and Technical College;
Total award amount: $1,598,212;
Grantee state: WV;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Northern Wyoming Community College District - Gillette
Campus;
Total award amount: $1,997,385;
Grantee state: WY;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Casper College;
Total award amount: $1,015,602;
Grantee state: WY;
Other states where activities take place: UT, OR, WA, ID, CA.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data.
[End of table]
Table 7: WIRED Grantees:
Recipient name: Alabama Department of Economic & Community Affairs;
Total award amount: $15,000,000;
Grantee state: AL;
Other states where activities take place: MS.
Recipient name: Alabama Department of Economic & Community Affairs;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: AL;
Other states where activities take place: TN.
Recipient name: Arkansas - Department of Workforce Services;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: AR;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Arizona Department of Commerce;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: AZ;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: State of California;
Total award amount: $15,000,000;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: California Employment Development Department;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: CA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Colorado Department of Labor & Employment;
Total award amount: $15,000,000;
Grantee state: CO;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Connecticut Department of Labor;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: CT;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: State of Florida;
Total award amount: $15,000,000;
Grantee state: FL;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: ID;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Indiana Department of Workforce Development;
Total award amount: $15,000,000;
Grantee state: IN;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Indiana Department of Workforce Development;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: IN;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Kansas Department of Commerce;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: KS;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Kentucky Office of Employment and Training;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: KY;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Maine Department of Labor;
Total award amount: $14,402,780;
Grantee state: ME;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Michigan Department of Labor;
Total award amount: $15,000,000;
Grantee state: MI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Michigan Department of Labor;
Total award amount: $14,996,953;
Grantee state: MI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Michigan Department of Labor (Detroit);
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: MI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: MN;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Missouri Department of Economic Development;
Total award amount: $14,922,702;
Grantee state: MO;
Other states where activities take place: KS.
Recipient name: Missouri Division of Workforce Development;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: MO;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Mississippi Department of Employment Security;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: MS;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Montana Department of Labor and Industry;
Total award amount: $15,000,000;
Grantee state: MT;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: North Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of
Employment and Training;
Total award amount: $14,685,000;
Grantee state: NC;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce
Development;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: NJ;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce
Development;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: NJ;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: NM;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: New York Department of Labor;
Total award amount: $14,792,509;
Grantee state: NY;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Governor's Grant Office - Ohio;
Total award amount: $100,000;
Grantee state: OH;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Ohio Department of Job and Family Services;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: OH;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce
Development;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: OR;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry;
Total award amount: $15,000,000;
Grantee state: PA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: PA;
Other states where activities take place: NJ, DE.
Recipient name: Puerto Rico Department of Labor;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: PR;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Texas Workforce Commission;
Total award amount: $100,000;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: State of Texas - Office of the Governor;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: TX;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Utah Department of Workforce Services;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: UT;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Virginia Employment Commission;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: VA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Washington Employment Security Department;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: WA;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: WI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Recipient name: Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development;
Total award amount: $5,000,000;
Grantee state: WI;
Other states where activities take place: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Department of Labor Technical Assistance Contracts:
Table 8: Department of Labor Technical Assistance Contracts Related to
High Growth, Community Based, and WIRED Grant Initiatives:
Contractor: DTI Associates, Inc;
Contract amount: $23,236.
Contractor: DAH Consulting, Inc., and Aspen Institute;
Contract amount: $39,566.
Contractor: Coffey Communications, LLC;
Contract amount: $27,000.
Contractor: Coffey Communications, LLC;
Contract amount: $250,000.
Contractor: Jobs for the Future;
Contract amount: $30,000.
Contractor: M.H. West & Co., Inc.;
Contract amount: $1,499,977.
Contractor: TATC Consulting;
Contract amount: $1,892,947.
Contractor: Leonard Resource Group;
Contract amount: $700,000.
Contractor: DTI Associates, Inc;
Contract amount: $2,497,259.
Contractor: Berkeley Policy Associates Old H-1B Technical Skill
Training Grant Program, recast for HG;
Contract amount: $399,835.
Contractor: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.;
Contract amount: $99,842.
Contractor: DAH Consulting, Inc.;
Contract amount: $349,995.
Contractor: M.H. West & Co., Inc.;
Contract amount: $2,252,515.
Contractor: Technology & Management Services, Inc.;
Contract amount: $2,287,884.
Contractor: New Economy Strategies;
Contract amount: $3,750,000.
Contractor: Total;
Contract amount: $16,100,056.
Source: U. S. Department of Labor:
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training:
Washington. D.C. 20210:
Mr. George A. Scott:
Director:
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Scott:
This letter is the Department of Labor's (DOL) response to the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report No. 08-486
entitled, "Employment and Training Program Grants: Evaluating Impact
and Enhancing Monitoring Would Improve Accountability." We appreciate
the opportunity to comment on the draft.
Overall Comments on Report:
GAO's report on the Employment and Training Administration's (ETA)
three grant initiatives, High Growth Job Training Initiative (HGJTI),
Community Based Job Training Grants (CBJTG), and Workforce Innovation
in Regional Economic Development (WIRED), makes conclusions regarding
all three initiatives without taking into consideration some key
distinctions. Although all three initiatives are connected to ensuring
more workers receive training and education to access and fill jobs and
careers in high growth industries and occupations, they are very
different initiatives with different objectives.
None of the three initiatives is considered to be a research project.
Consequently, these initiatives were not designed to compare
participant outcomes with the participant outcomes achieved under the
WIA formula programs. Instead, these initiatives are designed to
highlight model approaches and necessary partnerships with industry,
community colleges, economic development organizations, foundations,
and investors.
Responses to Overarching Findings:
DOL offers its responses below to several conclusions drawn by GAO on
the attached report.
GAO suggests that Labor did not plan well to get the appropriate
performance and outcome data to enable comparisons to other programs
(HGJTI and WIRED).
High growth industries identified a variety of workforce challenges,
including industry image, recruitment and retention, skills
development, and capacity of training providers.
The workforce solutions funded by the HGJTI addressed these challenges
in a variety of ways. HGJTI grantees implemented workforce solutions
within a given industry through different strategies, making it
difficult to compare across grants. Additionally, some grants focused
on solutions for a single challenge and others implemented solutions to
a number of challenges. These differences among grants made it
necessary to assess the individual grants using different
methodologies - an approach ETA has attempted since the inception of
the initiative. Over time, the HGJTI has become more "programmatic" in
nature, and ETA has moved to formalize the reporting and performance
measurement processes, which are expected to be in place by July 2008.
Evaluations are in progress for all three generations of WIRED
grantees. Similar to the HGJTI, the approaches in the thirty-nine (39)
regions funded under WIRED are all very different. Every region has
been required to identify their region's specific outcomes and track
against them, and, where job training is provided, to capture data
consistent with the Office of Management and Budget's common measures.
The outcomes for common measures are not yet available due to the
timing of training, which generally follows a period of building
capacity to do the training and the lag in gaining access to wage
record data. Many of the region-specific indicators are more long term
indicators, such as a reduction in high school dropouts, new business
start-ups, and job creation.
GAO finds fault with the HGJTI's non-competitive process related to
several issues such as: inclusion of workforce system partners in the
process; criteria for grant review was not documented and changed over
time; where WIA funds were used, there was a lack of documentation of
statutory requirements; and documentation supporting the procurement
process was not sufficient (citing the Office of Inspector General's
(OIG) report).
The HGJTI represents a systemic change from the approach taken by ETA
in the past and is designed to propel the workforce investment system
to become demand-driven. With this new initiative, ETA felt that worker
and employer needs would be served most expeditiously and effectively
by awarding the early HGJTI grants on a non-competitive basis. It was,
however, ETA's intent from the early phases of the HGJTI to move to a
fully competitive investment model, and ETA began that process in
Program Year 2004. Currently, all HGJTI grants are awarded through a
competitive process.
Prior to making the initial noncompetitive awards, ETA took a rigorous
approach to identifying growth industries, collecting data from
industry leaders, and reviewing over 450 unsolicited grant
applications. Many of the reviewed proposals put forth truly innovative
approaches to workforce solutions, and many of the applicants
demonstrated a commitment to their approach by proposing to provide
substantial funding or other contributions to the project. ETA made
sole source awards consistent with the DOL policies and procedures
governing non-competitive awards and Federal procurement rules.
* Inclusion of workforce system partners:
The HGJTI had a primary goal of changing the perspective and approach
through which the workforce system operates. Rather than focusing only
on the individual job seeker, HGJTI set forth a framework where
employers' needs and the training associated with employment
opportunities are the starting point for action. This initiative
recognized the importance of strategic partnerships among the workforce
system and employers in the implementation of these actions. As GAO
identified in their report, ETA went to significant lengths to gain
workforce system involvement in its HGJTI efforts. ETA would add that
in addition to those outreach efforts specifically referenced, ETA
routinely issued press releases on all HGJTI grants, posted grant
information on the ETA website, worked collaboratively with the
National Association of Workforce Boards and the National Association
of State Workforce Agencies to fully describe the initiative, and
developed Workforce3One.org - a website designed to promote demand-
driven approaches.
GAO also suggests that workforce boards faced barriers to adopting the
framework for the HGJTI and WIRED. In response, ETA asserts that the
framework for the HGJTI and WIRED area part of the vision of WIA.
Workforce boards are intended to drive the use of WIA resources toward
meeting industry needs and to develop the capacity of the workforce
system to address future training and education demands. Additionally,
the workforce boards should work to leverage additional resources
beyond those directly provided by WIA. Many workforce boards have
proven to be exceptionally entrepreneurial in their collaboration with
strategic partners and have leveraged a wide array of resources beyond
those granted through WIA to successfully implement these approaches to
workforce development. ETA has supported and continues to support, the
workforce system with these initiatives by providing flexibility in the
use of WIA funds through the issuance of waivers and by providing
significant technical assistance to help workforce boards learn how to
implement these approaches. ETA agrees that a more flexible and
reformed WIA statute would enable the workforce system to better engage
in these approaches, but we do not agree that any current challenges
cannot be overcome.
* Criteria for grant review was not documented and changed over time:
ETA provided GAO with a history of the HGJTI that clearly stated that
DOL reviewed these proposals with an intent to choose those proposals
that: 1) were innovative; 2) responded directly to the issue areas
defined by industry; 3) represented strategic partnerships that
included business and industry, education, and the public workforce
system; and, 4) in many cases leveraged both public and private funding
from other sources. Over time, ETA also began to find that similar
workforce challenges emerged across industry sectors, such as the image
of the industry, the need for a pipeline of youth, the need to build
educational capacity, the need for well-defined skills and
competencies, the need for understanding career ladders and lattices
within an industry, and the need to engage untapped talent pools. As we
gained this knowledge, ETA began to look for solutions in specific
industries that covered these challenges. It is not improper to modify
the standards for selecting grantees when the agency's assessment of
the workforce needs changes.
Documentation supporting the procurement process was not sufficient
(See OIG report).
ETA strongly disagreed with the majority of the findings of the OIG's
audit report on HGJTI and, where GAO repeats these findings, ETA
continues to disagree. There are no specific rules for documenting the
decision-making process for non-competitive grants and ETA believes
that its methods of documentation went beyond practices usually applied
in overseeing noncompetitive grants. However, as GAO suggests, ETA
concurs that additional documentation would be valuable and has taken
steps to change its processes to require such documentation.
GAO suggests that HGJTI and WIRED should have been included in ETA's
strategic plan and research agenda.
While the strategic plan is part of the program/budget exercise applied
mainly to statutory programs, ETA discusses both the HGJTI and WIRED
initiatives in its annual budget request, which provides comprehensive
policy guidance on agency priorities. In addition, the DOL's Strategic
Plan for Fiscal Years 2006-2011 discusses how the HGJTI is helping
workers by "targeting private and public resources and support to
capitalize on industries and sectors experiencing economic growth and
expansion" (page 11) and "increasing system focus on understanding,
predicting, and populating the high-growth marketplace, using models
and lessons developed by the President's High Growth Job Training
Initiative" (page 28). The strategic plan also lists the HGJTI in the
active program evaluations table (page 76). The strategic plan also
discusses how the Department is developing competitiveness through
WIRED in response to the President's Competitiveness Agenda (page 29).
ETA's Five-Year Research, Demonstration and Evaluation Strategic Plan
for 2007-2012 identifies the HGJTI as one of the current research,
demonstration and evaluation projects being implemented (pages 10-11).
In addition, under future research, the plan discusses an option to
measure integration success by evaluating the partnerships within the
HGJTI, CBJTI, and WIRED initiatives to determine their role in training
outcomes and regional economic stability and growth. ETA has taken
initial steps towards measuring integration through the HGJTI
evaluation and the WIRED initiative evaluation (pages 16-17).
Responses to Recommendations for Executive Action:
On page 27 of the draft report, GAO made three Recommendations for
Executive Action. DOL would like to respond.
Recommendation #1:
Take steps to ensure that the department can evaluate the impact of the
initiatives so that it can draw strong conclusions based on its
evaluations, such as following through with plans to collect consistent
data, integrating the initiatives into its overall research agenda with
relevant performance goals and indicators, and including these
initiatives in its assessment of the impact of WIA services.
ETA has taken initial steps to evaluate the impact of the three
initiatives and is continuously looking for better methods to evaluate
the outcomes of these complex and innovative strategic approaches. ETA
is committed to identifying methods for collecting hard data on common
measures for all three initiatives where grant dollars are used for
direct training.
ETA reiterates that the three initiatives are already integrated in its
most recent five-year strategic plan. ETA also disagrees with the
premise that these three initiatives belong in its assessment of the
impact of WIA services, since these initiatives have their own
evaluation efforts.
Recommendation #2:
Direct the ETA to ensure that in awarding noncompetitive grants,
statutory program requirements are met and that this is documented.
ETA has processed unsolicited proposals based on established procedures
since 1999. ETA has recently updated this process in an effort to
streamline and improve accountability. Under the updated process,
proposals undergo a thorough preliminary review to assess compliance
with applicable Federal laws and regulations, alignment with the
Secretary of Labor's strategic goals, ETA's guiding principles, and our
current policy and investment focus. Compliance with statutory
requirements is now fully documented.
Organizations submitting proposals that are not compliant with these
criteria do not receive further consideration. Proposals compliant with
these criteria are forwarded to agency programmatic experts for a
comprehensive feasibility review. If this comprehensive review results
in an equivocal recommendation, the proposal is peer reviewed.
Proposals that receive a favorable review by programmatic experts or a
peer review group, as applicable, are recommended to the Assistant
Secretary for funding consideration. Funding for unsolicited (non-
competitive) proposals for amounts greater than $100,000 must be
approved by the DOL Procurement Review Board (PRB) and must meet one or
more of the criteria for non-competitive funding.
All facets of this process, including the initial, comprehensive, and
peer reviews; funding recommendations; and PRB requests and
determinations are fully documented, and the documentation is
maintained for the period required by regulation and statute.
The Office of Grants and Contract Management will maintain all approved
PRB recommendations that are funded in the official grant file.
Recommendation #3:
Develop and implement a risk-based monitoring approach for WIRED and a
schedule for its use.
ETA plans to implement a risk-based monitoring approach for the WIRED
grants by June 2008. The Core Monitoring Guide (the Guide) and
Financial Supplement used for all ETA grants, including the HGJTI and
CBJT grants, will be the source documents for these reviews. The Guide
will be supplemented further with a WIRED-specific set of objectives
and questions designed to elicit information that is specific to the
WIRED grants, including activities such as education, marketing, and
intellectual property development. While the Guide and supplements will
be used to determine adherence to requirements at the state or grantee
level, they will also be used to determine adherence to requirements at
the regional or subgrantee levels.
A schedule for these reviews is in the initial stage, with the first
review currently scheduled for the week of June 2, 2008. At that time,
the supplements will be field-tested for any needed changes and a core
group of reviewers will be trained in the use of the Guide and report
development. Subsequent to the initial review, Federal Project Officers
assigned to the WIRED grants will be trained. We anticipate that the
second review will be conducted the week of June 23, 2008, with the
remainder of the Generation I grantees being reviewed by the end of
September 2008. Generation II and III grantees will be reviewed after
October 1, 2008. Grantees will be notified of the upcoming reviews at
the WIRED Academy to be held May 1-2, 2008, in Boston.
The Guide and the Financial Supplement have previously been provided to
GAO. The WIRED specific supplement is currently in development.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Brent R. Orrell:
Acting Assistant Secretary:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
George A. Scott, Director, 202-512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Patrick di Battista, Assistant Director, and Julianne Hartman Cutts
managed this engagement.
Karen A. Brown and Nancy Purvine, Senior Analysts, and Stephanie Toby,
Analyst, made significant contributions to this report. Jean McSween
provided methodological assistance, and Jessica Botsford provided legal
assistance. The team also benefited from key technical assistance from
Susan Aschoff, Pat L. Bohan, Paul Caban, Jessica Orr, Michael Springer,
and Charles Willson.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Improve the
Workforce System. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-
1061T]. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007.
Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve
Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program Impact.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?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.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-870]. Washington,
D.C.: September 5, 2006.
Discretionary Grants: Further Tightening of Education's Procedures for
Making Awards Could Improve Transparency and Accountability.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-268]. Washington,
D.C.: February 21, 2006.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to
Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?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. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-650]. Washington, D.C.: June
29, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches
to Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-
259]. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2005.
Public Community Colleges and Technical Schools: Most Schools Use Both
Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-4]. Washington, D.C.: October
18, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed
Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-657]. Washington,
D.C.: June 1, 2004.
National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Assess
Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?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. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-308]. Washington, D.C.:
February 23, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information
Sharing Is Needed. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-
725]. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.
Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs,
but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-353]. Washington,
D.C.: February 14, 2003.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] 29 U.S.C. § 2916.
[2] 29 U.S.C. § 2916a.
[3] This program imposes a fee on employers that hire foreign workers
to fill positions in specialized professions such as computer
technology.
[4] The High Growth Job Training Initiative was funded under both WIA
and ACWIA provisions; the Community Based Job Training Grants were
funded under the WIA provision and WIRED grants were funded under
ACWIA. The High Growth grants were awarded under WIA as pilots and
demonstrations. The WIA provision requires that grants provide direct
services to individuals, include an evaluative component, and are made
to entities with recognized expertise. The ACWIA provision requires
Labor to identify industries and economic sectors projected to
experience significant growth. In addition the ACWIA provision requires
Labor to use H-1B funds to award grants to entities to provide job
training and related activities, ensure that grants are equitably
distributed geographically, and ensure that training activities funded
by such grants are coordinated with the workforce investment system.
[5] This includes activities carried out under section 171.
[6] In evaluating the impact of programs, outcome data from the program
are compared to a baseline. Considered the most rigorous method for
conducting impact evaluations, the experimental method randomly assigns
participants to two groups--one that receives a program service (or
treatment) and one that does not (control group). The resulting outcome
data on both groups are compared and the difference in outcomes between
the groups is taken to demonstrate the program's impact. In a quasi-
experimental approach, program participation is not randomly assigned,
but outcome data for individuals who participated in a program are
compared to others who did not.
[7] GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have
Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to
Help, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-657]
(Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004).
[8] GAO, Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve
Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program Impact,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-594] (Washington,
D.C.: May 24, 2007).
[9] 31 U.S.C. § 6301(3).
[10] Department of Labor Manual Series 2-836(G) - Exclusions and
Exceptions to Competitive Procedures for grants and cooperative
agreements.
[11] The Domestic Working Group Grant Accountability Project, Guide to
Opportunities for Improving Grant Accountability, October 2005. The
group was composed of representatives from federal, state, and local
audit organizations, including Labor's inspector general.
[12] OMB Circular A-133, which implements the Single Audit Act (31
U.S.C. §§7501-7507), requires nonfederal entities that expend $500,000
or more in federal funds to have a single or program-specific audit
conducted for that year.
[13] According to Labor, the High Growth initiative included several
key steps prior to awarding the grants and is ongoing through
dissemination of grant results. Key steps included: identification of
high-growth, high-demand industries; industry scans to understand the
size, trends, and scope of each industry; industry executive forums to
hear workforce challenges; workforce solutions forums to develop
solutions to address these challenges; investments in workforce
solutions (i.e., grants) for industry-identified challenges and follow-
on competitive opportunities; and dissemination strategies for High
Growth products.
[14] 5 U.S.C. § 306.
[15] While acknowledging that reporting practices for High Growth were
not established fully at the initiative's outset, officials said this
was because the nature of the initiative posed inherent challenges in
developing a common reporting and performance model: each grant was
different, with different training models for different populations;
some grants were for training, others were for capacity building. Labor
said that as it became clear that more rigorous procedures for
reporting were needed, it took the necessary steps to address the
problem.
[16] Labor developed a proposed approach to collect and report the
common measures for WIRED grants using the existing state WIA
performance system, but, as of November 2007, it had not yet collected
them.
[17] This requirement did not apply to grants awarded under the WIA
provision authorizing High Growth grants.
[18] GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[19] 29 U.S.C § 2916.
[20] 29 U.S.C § 2916(b)(1) and 29 U.S.C § 2916(b)(2)(B).
[21] Labor's Procurement Review Board is responsible for reviewing
various acquisition activities, including most unsolicited grant
proposals, and recommending approval or disapproval to the department's
Chief Acquisitions Officer.
[22] Department of Labor Manual Series 2-836(G) - Exclusions and
Exceptions to Competitive Procedures for grants and cooperative
agreements. There are five additional exceptions listed for awarding
noncompetitive grants: (1) a noncompetitive award is authorized or
required by statute; (2) the activity is essential to the satisfactory
completion of an activity presently funded by DOL; (3) it is necessary
to fund a recipient with an established relationship with the agency
for a variety of reasons; (4) the application for the activity was
evaluated under the criteria of the competition for which the
application was submitted, was rated high enough to have been selected
under the competition, and was not selected because the application was
mishandled; and (5) the Secretary determined that a noncompetitive
award is in the public interest.
[23] U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General--Office of
Audit, High Growth Job Training Initiative: Decisions for Non-
competitive Awards Not Adequately Justified, 02-08-201-03-390 (Nov. 2,
2007).
[24] Labor identified a 14th sector--Homeland Security--in 2005 and did
not hold an executive or solutions forum for this sector, according to
officials.
[25] Labor conducted industry scans of the size, trends, and scope of
certain industries to understand the industries and any known
challenges. In this process, they identified high growth/high-demand
industries that have a high-demand for workers. Officials said that
they did not intend to identify all high-growth industry sectors in the
economy, but to provide a framework for the process to be used at the
state and local levels.
[26] Solutions forums were not held for the information technology and
retail sectors.
[27] Some states had representatives from the state workforce
investment board participating and some states had a workforce-related
agency such as those involved in employment and/or economic
development.
[28] Labor's risk-based monitoring strategy differs from single audits.
Entities receiving Labor grants are subject to the provisions of the
Single Audit Act if certain conditions are met. The Single Audit Act
established the concept of the single audit to replace multiple grant
audits with one audit of a recipient as a whole. As such a single audit
is an organization-wide audit that covers, among other things, the
recipient's internal controls and its compliance with applicable
provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants. In contrast,
Labor's risk-based approach focuses on the readiness and capacity of
the grantee to operate the grant including compliance with laws,
regulations, and specific program requirements.
[29] U.S. Department of Labor--Office of Inspector General, report
prepared by KPMG LLP, Management Advisory Comments Identified in an
Audit of the Consolidated Financial Statements for the Year Ended
September 30, 2007, 22-08-006-13-001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 20, 2008).
[30] This observation was based on audits of three Labor grantees
during fiscal year 2007.
[31] A geographic information system is a computer application used to
store, view, and analyze geographical information, especially maps.
[32] Labor's grant monitoring plans are to reflect any program-specific
monitoring requirements as well as specific requirements for on-site
visits to grantees with new grants and those rated "at-risk" though the
risk assessment process.
[33] Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor,
Core Monitoring Guide (Washington D.C.: April 2005).
[34] John Trutko, Carolyn O'Brien, Pamela Holcomb, and Demetra Smith
Nightingale, Implementation and Sustainability: Emerging Lessons from
the Early High Growth Job Training Initiative (HGJTI) Grants, Final
Report (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, April 2007).
[End of section]
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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
