Davis-Bacon Act
Methodological Expertise Critical for Improving Survey Quality Gao ID: GAO-11-486T April 14, 2011This testimony discusses the Department of Labor's (Labor) procedures for determining prevailing wage rates under the Davis-Bacon Act. Davis-Bacon wages must be paid to workers on certain federally funded construction projects, and their vulnerability to the use of inaccurate data has long been an issue for Congress, employers, and workers. More recently, the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, focused attention on the need for accurate and timely wage determinations, with more than $300 billion estimated to provide substantial funding for, among other things, federally funded building and infrastructure work potentially subject to Davis-Bacon wage rates. In the 1990s, we issued two reports that found process changes were needed to increase confidence that wage rates were based on accurate data. A third report found that changes then planned by Labor, if successfully implemented, had the potential to improve the wage determination process. However, in 2004, Labor's Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that wage data errors and the timeliness of surveys used to gather wage information from contractors and others, continued to be issues. The testimony will discuss (1) the extent to which Labor has addressed concerns regarding the quality of the Davis-Bacon wage determination process and (2) additional issues identified by stakeholders regarding the wage determination process. This testimony is based on our recently issued report, titled "Davis-Bacon Act: Methodological Changes Needed to Improve Wage Survey."
In summary, we found that recent efforts to improve the Davis-Bacon wage survey have not yet addressed key issues with survey quality, such as the representativeness and sufficiency of survey data collected. Labor has made some data collection and processing changes; however, we found some surveys initiated under these changes were behind Labor's processing schedule. Stakeholders said contractors may not participate in the survey because they do not understand its purpose or do not believe the resultant prevailing wages are fully accurate. In addition, they said addressing a lack of transparency in how the published wage rates are set could result in a better understanding of the process and greater participation in the survey. We suggest Congress consider amending its requirement that Labor issue wage rates by civil subdivision to allow more flexibility. To improve the quality and timeliness of the Davis-Bacon wage surveys, we recommend Labor obtain objective expert advice on its survey design and methodology. We also recommend Labor take steps to improve the transparency of its wage determinations.
GAO-11-486T, Davis-Bacon Act: Methodological Expertise Critical for Improving Survey Quality
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-486T
entitled 'Davis-Bacon Act: Methodological Expertise Critical for
Improving Survey Quality' which was released on April 14, 2011.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Committee on
Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, April 14, 2011:
Davis-Bacon Act:
Methodological Expertise Critical for Improving Survey Quality:
Statement of Andrew Sherrill, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security:
GAO-11-486T:
Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Woolsey, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Department of Labor's
(Labor) procedures for determining prevailing wage rates under the
Davis-Bacon Act.[Footnote 1] Davis-Bacon wages must be paid to workers
on certain federally funded construction projects, and their
vulnerability to the use of inaccurate data has long been an issue for
Congress, employers, and workers. More recently, the passage of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,[Footnote 2] focused
attention on the need for accurate and timely wage determinations,
with more than $300 billion estimated to provide substantial funding
for, among other things, federally funded building and infrastructure
work potentially subject to Davis-Bacon wage rates.[Footnote 3] In the
1990s, we issued two reports that found process changes were needed to
increase confidence that wage rates were based on accurate data.
[Footnote 4] A third report found that changes then planned by Labor,
if successfully implemented, had the potential to improve the wage
determination process.[Footnote 5] However, in 2004, Labor's Office of
Inspector General (OIG) found that wage data errors and the timeliness
of surveys used to gather wage information from contractors and
others, continued to be issues.[Footnote 6]
Today I will discuss (1) the extent to which Labor has addressed
concerns regarding the quality of the Davis-Bacon wage determination
process and (2) additional issues identified by stakeholders regarding
the wage determination process. My remarks are based on our recently
issued report, titled Davis-Bacon Act: Methodological Changes Needed
to Improve Wage Survey.[Footnote 7] To evaluate the extent to which
Labor has addressed concerns regarding the quality of the wage
determination process, we interviewed Labor officials, reviewed
relevant federal laws and regulations, and compared agency documents
on current survey practices with guidance on data quality and survey
design from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Labor.
[Footnote 8] We conducted site visits to three of Labor's five
regional offices that process Davis-Bacon wage surveys, as well as to
the Construction Industry Research and Policy Center (CIRPC), a Labor
survey contractor.[Footnote 9] We compared 12 surveys performed under
Labor's new processes against its revised timelines to assess whether
the surveys were on schedule. We also analyzed the results of four
surveys published in 2009 or 2010 and reviewed their verification
reports prepared by Labor's contracted auditor.[Footnote 10] Further,
we analyzed currently published wage rates to determine their age and
the proportion of union-prevailing to nonunion-prevailing rates.
[Footnote 11] To assess what additional issues were concerns for
stakeholders, we conducted approximately 30 interviews with
contractors and representatives from academia, contractor
associations, and unions, and performed a content analysis of their
responses. A more detailed explanation of our methodology is available
in Appendix I of our full report.
This testimony is based on work performed between September 2009 and
March 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
In summary, we found that recent efforts to improve the Davis-Bacon
wage survey have not yet addressed key issues with survey quality,
such as the representativeness and sufficiency of survey data
collected. Labor has made some data collection and processing changes;
however, we found some surveys initiated under these changes were
behind Labor's processing schedule. Stakeholders said contractors may
not participate in the survey because they do not understand its
purpose or do not believe the resultant prevailing wages are fully
accurate. In addition, they said addressing a lack of transparency in
how the published wage rates are set could result in a better
understanding of the process and greater participation in the survey.
We suggest Congress consider amending its requirement that Labor issue
wage rates by civil subdivision to allow more flexibility. To improve
the quality and timeliness of the Davis-Bacon wage surveys, we
recommend Labor obtain objective expert advice on its survey design
and methodology. We also recommend Labor take steps to improve the
transparency of its wage determinations.
Background:
The Davis-Bacon Act was enacted in 1931, in part, to protect
communities and workers from the economic disruption caused by
contractors hiring lower-wage workers from outside their local area,
thus obtaining federal construction contracts by underbidding
competitors who pay local wage rates. Labor administers the act
through its Wage and Hour Division, which conducts voluntary surveys
of construction contractors and interested third parties[Footnote 12]
on both federal and nonfederal projects to obtain wages paid to
workers in each construction job by locality.[Footnote 13] It then
uses the data submitted on these survey forms to determine locally
prevailing wage and fringe benefit rates for its four construction
types: building, heavy, highway, and residential.[Footnote 14]
To determine a prevailing wage for a specific job classification,
Labor considers sufficient information to be the receipt of wage data
on at least three workers from two different employers in its
designated survey area. Then, in accordance with its regulations,
Labor calculates the prevailing wage by determining if the same wage
rate is paid to the majority (more than 50 percent) of workers
employed in a specific job classification on similar projects in the
area.[Footnote 15] If the same rate is not paid to the majority of
workers in a job classification, the prevailing wage is the average
wage rate weighted by the number of employees for which that rate was
reported. In cases where the prevailing wage is also a collectively
bargained, or union, rate, the rate is determined to be "union-
prevailing." To issue a wage determination--a compilation of
prevailing wage rates for multiple job classifications in a given
area--Labor must, according to its procedures, also have sufficient
data to determine prevailing wages for at least 50 percent of key job
classifications. Key job classifications are those determined
necessary for one or more of the four construction types.[Footnote 16]
By statute, Labor must issue wage determinations based on similar
projects in the "civil subdivision of the state" in which the federal
work is to be performed.[Footnote 17] Labor's regulations state the
civil subdivision will be the county, unless there are insufficient
wage data.[Footnote 18] When data from a county are insufficient to
issue a wage rate for a job classification, a group of counties is
created. When data are still insufficient, Labor includes data from
contiguous counties, combined in "groups" or "supergroups" of
counties, until sufficient data are available to meet threshold
guidelines to make a prevailing wage determination. Expansion to
include other counties, if necessary, may continue until data from all
counties in the state are combined. Counties are combined based on
whether they are metropolitan or rural, and cannot be mixed.
Recent Efforts to Improve Data Collection and Processing Have Not Yet
Addressed Key Issues with Survey Quality:
Labor has taken several steps over the last few years to address
issues with its Davis-Bacon wage surveys. For example, it finished 22
open surveys that had accumulated since the agency started conducting
statewide surveys in 2002. Officials said completing these surveys
will allow them to focus on more recent surveys. Labor also changed
how it collects and processes information for its four construction
types by surveying some construction types separately rather than
simultaneously, using other available sources of wage data, adjusting
survey time frames, and processing survey data as it is received
rather than waiting until a survey closes. For highway surveys, Labor
officials said they began using certified payrolls as the primary data
source because certified payrolls provide accurate and reliable wage
information and eliminate the need for Labor to verify wage data
reported in surveys. Labor officials estimated these changes will
reduce the processing time for highway surveys by more than 80
percent, or from about 42 months to 8 months. For building and heavy
surveys, Labor began a five-survey pilot in 2009, adjusting survey
time frames--with shorter time frames for areas in which there are
many active projects--to allow Labor to better manage the quantity of
data received. In addition, Labor officials said their regional office
staff have begun processing survey data as they are received rather
than waiting until a survey closes, which, they said, will improve
timeliness and accuracy because survey respondents will be better able
to recall submitted information when contacted by regional office
staff for clarification and verification. Labor expects these changes
to reduce the time needed to process building and heavy surveys by
approximately 54 percent, or from about 37 months to 17 months.
However, while it is too early to fully assess the effects of Labor's
2009 actions, our review found that changes to data collection and
processing may not achieve expected results. We were able to analyze
the timeliness of 12 of the 16 surveys conducted under Labor's new
processes at the time of our review.[Footnote 19] Of those 12 surveys--
8 highway and 4 building and heavy--which we assessed against Labor's
revised timelines, we found 10 behind schedule, 1 on schedule, and 1
not started as of September 10, 2010.[Footnote 20] A challenge to
survey timeliness is the fact that Labor conducts a "universe" or
"census" survey of all active construction projects within a
designated time frame and geographic area. As a result, the number of
returned survey forms and the time required for the regional offices
to process the data can vary widely. For example, for 14 surveys
conducted prior to Labor's 2009 changes, the number of forms returned
per survey ranged from less than 2,000 to more than 8,000, and the
average processing time per survey for data clarification and analysis
ranged from 10 months to more than 40. Moreover, Labor cannot entirely
control when it receives survey forms. Some regional office officials
said the bulk of the forms are returned on the last day of a survey
limiting officials' ability to gain time by processing forms while the
survey is ongoing as planned under the 2009 changes. To address these
challenges, OMB guidance suggests agencies consider the cost and
benefits of conducting a sample survey (versus a census survey)
because it can often ensure data quality in a more efficient and
economical way.[Footnote 21]
The fact that Labor is behind schedule on surveys begun under the new
processes may affect its ability to update the many published nonunion-
prevailing wage rates which are several years old. Labor's fiscal year
2010 performance goal was for 90 percent of published wage rates for
building, heavy, and highway construction types to be no more than 3
years old. Our analysis found that 61 percent of published rates for
these construction types were 3 years old or less.[Footnote 22]
However, this figure can be somewhat misleading because of the
difference in how union-and nonunion-prevailing wage rates are
updated. Union-prevailing rates account for almost two-thirds of the
more than 650,000 published building, heavy, and highway rates and,
according to Labor's policy, can be updated when there is a new
collective bargaining agreement without Labor conducting a new survey.
We found almost 75 percent of those rates were 3 years old or less.
However, 36 percent of the nonunion-prevailing wage rates were 3 years
old or less and almost 46 percent were 10 or more years old. These
rates are not updated until Labor conducts a new survey. Several of
the union and contractor association representatives we interviewed
said the age of the Davis-Bacon nonunion-prevailing rates means they
often do not reflect actual prevailing wages, which can make it
difficult for contractors to successfully bid on federal projects.
Beyond concerns with processes and timelines, we also found that
critical problems with Labor's wage survey methodology continue to
hinder its survey quality. OMB guidance states that agencies need to
consider the potential impact of response rate and nonresponse on the
quality of information obtained through a survey. A low response rate
may mean the results are misleading or inaccurate if those who respond
differ substantially and systematically from those who do not respond.
However, Labor cannot determine whether its Davis-Bacon survey results
are representative of prevailing wages because it has not calculated
survey response rates since 2002, and, other than a second letter
automatically sent to nonrespondents, does not currently have a
program to systematically follow up with or analyze nonrespondents.
While a senior Labor official said the agency is taking steps to again
calculate response rates, these changes have not been fully
implemented and it is unclear if they will result in improved survey
quality.
The utility of issuing wage determinations at the county level is also
questionable. Labor's regulations state the county will normally be
the civil subdivision for which a prevailing wage is determined;
[Footnote 23] however, Labor is often unable to issue wage rates for
job classifications at the county level because it does not collect
enough data to meet its current sufficiency standard of wage
information on at least three workers from two employers. In the
results from the four surveys we reviewed, Labor issued about 11
percent of wage rates for key job classifications using data from a
single county (see figure 1).[Footnote 24],[Footnote 25]
Figure 1: Percentage of Key Job Classification Wage Rates Issued at
Each Geographic Level, for Four Surveys Reviewed:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
State: 40%;
Group: 22%;
Supergroup: 20%;
County: 11%;
Geographic level not available: 7%.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor data from Florida, Maryland, Tennessee,
and West Texas Metropolitan surveys published in either 2009 or 2010.
[End of figure]
Moreover, in 1997, Labor's OIG reported that issuing rates by county
may cause wage decisions to be based on an inadequate number of
responses. In the four surveys we reviewed, more than one-quarter of
the wage rates were based on data reported for six or fewer workers
(see figure 2).
Figure 2: Percentage of Key Job Classification Wage Rates Issued Based
on Number of Workers, for Four Surveys Reviewed:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
3 workers: 6%;
4-6 workers: 20%;
7-12 workers: 23%;
13-28 workers: 26%;
29 or more workers: 25%.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor data from Florida, Maryland, Tennessee,
and West Texas Metropolitan surveys published in either 2009 or 2010.
[End of figure]
The statutory requirement to issue Davis-Bacon wages based on similar
projects in the "civil subdivision of the state" limits Labor's
options to address inadequate data because it cannot use data from
other sources if those data draw from geographic areas, such as
metropolitan statistical areas, which are not the same as civil
subdivisions. Officials from CIRPC, Labor's survey contractor, said
one way to improve accuracy is to survey areas other than counties
because counties are arbitrary geographic divisions whereas other
geographic groupings, such as the economic areas used by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis, are based on regional markets that frequently cross
county and state lines.[Footnote 26] Some stakeholders said the focus
on county-level wage rates results in the publication of illogical
rates--for example, a contractor paving a road that crossed a county
line had to pay workers different wage rates based on which side of
the line they worked.
Little Incentive to Participate and Lack of Transparency Remain Key
Issues for Stakeholders:
In our interviews with stakeholders, concerns about the survey process
and accuracy of the published wage determinations were cited as
disincentives to participate. Contractors may lack the necessary
resources, may not understand the purpose of the survey, or may not
see the point in responding because they believe the prevailing wages
issued by Labor are inaccurate, stakeholders told us. Officials we
interviewed in Labor regional offices echoed many of these same
concerns about contractor participation.
While 19 of the 27 contractors and interested parties we interviewed
said the survey form was generally easy to understand, some identified
challenges with completing specific sections, such as how to apply the
correct job classification.[Footnote 27] Labor officials said they did
not pretest the current survey form with respondents, and our review
of reports by Labor's contracted auditor for four published surveys
found most survey forms, which are verified against payroll data, had
errors in areas such as number of employees and hourly and fringe
benefit rates.[Footnote 28] Labor officials said they have plans to
address portions of the form that confuse respondents, but could not
provide specifics on how they intend to solicit input from
respondents--a step recommended by OMB to reduce error.
Fifteen stakeholders we interviewed said there is a lack of
transparency in wage determinations because key information is not
available or hard to find. Both contractor associations and union
officials said improving transparency in how the published wage rates
are set could enhance understanding of the process and result in
greater participation in the survey. A senior Labor official said the
agency is considering posting information used to determine wage rates
online.
Finally, while the pre-survey briefing is one of Labor's primary
outreach efforts to inform stakeholders about upcoming surveys,
awareness of these briefings was mixed. In three states that were
surveyed for building and heavy construction in 2009 or 2010--Arizona,
North Carolina, and West Virginia--all the union representatives we
interviewed said they were aware of the pre-survey briefing and
representatives from four of the six state contractor associations we
interviewed said they were aware a briefing had been conducted.
However, in Florida and New York--last surveyed in 2005 and 2006
respectively--none of the 12 contractors we interviewed were aware
that a briefing had been conducted prior to the survey. Seven of 27
stakeholders indicated that alternative approaches, such as webinars
or audioconferences, might be helpful ways to reach additional
contractors.[Footnote 29]
Conclusions and Recommendations:
While Labor has made some changes to improve the wage determination
process, further steps are needed to address longstanding issues with
the quality of wage determinations and enhance their transparency. In
our report, we suggested that Congress consider amending its
requirement that Labor issue wage rates by civil subdivision to
provide the agency with more flexibility. To improve the quality and
timeliness of the wage surveys, we recommended that Labor enlist an
independent statistical organization to evaluate and provide objective
advice on the survey, including its methods and design; the potential
for conducting a sample survey instead of a census survey; the
collection, processing, tracking and analysis of data; and the
promotion of survey awareness. We also recommended that Labor take
steps to improve the transparency of its wage determinations, which
could encourage greater participation in its survey. After reviewing
the draft report, Labor agreed with our recommendation to improve
transparency, but said obtaining expert survey advice may be
premature, given current and planned changes. We believe a time of
change is exactly when the agency should obtain expert advice to
ensure their efforts improve the quality of the wage determination
process. A complete discussion of our recommendations, Labor's
comments, and our response are provided in our report.
Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Woolsey, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information regarding this statement, please contact
Andrew Sherrill at (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this statement. Individuals who made key
contributions to this testimony include Gretta L. Goodwin (Assistant
Director), Amy Anderson, Brenna Guarneros, Susan Aschoff, Walter
Vance, Ronald Fecso (Chief Statistician), Melinda Cordero, Mimi
Nguyen, and Alexander Galuten.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 71-798, 46 Stat. 1494 (1931), as amended; codified at
40 U.S.C. § 3141 et. seq. A prevailing wage rate is the wage that
Labor determines to be prevailing for the corresponding class of
laborers or mechanics employed on projects of a character similar to
the contract work in the civil subdivision of the state in which the
work is to be performed.
[2] Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115.
[3] The Congressional Budget Office estimated in early 2009 that the
combined spending and tax provisions of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 would cost $787 billion from 2009 through
2019. In April 2009, the Congressional Research Service estimated the
budget authority for Division A of the act to be more than $300
billion for the same time period. Division A consists primarily of
discretionary spending with some exceptions and includes federally
funded building and infrastructure work.
[4] See GAO, Davis-Bacon Act: Labor Now Verifies Wage Data, but
Verification Process Needs Improvement, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-99-21] (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
11, 1999) and Davis-Bacon Act: Process Changes Could Raise Confidence
That Wage Rates Are Based on Accurate Data, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-96-130] (Washington, D.C.: May
31, 1996).
[5] See GAO, Davis-Bacon Act: Labor's Actions Have Potential to
Improve Wage Determinations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-99-97] (Washington, D.C.: May 28,
1999).
[6] Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Concerns Persist
with the Integrity of Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Determinations, 04-
04-003-04-420 (Washington, D.C., Mar. 30, 2004).
[7] See GAO, Davis-Bacon Act: Methodological Changes Needed to Improve
Wage Survey, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-152]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 22, 2011).
[8] See Office of Management and Budget, Guidelines for Ensuring and
Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of
Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies (effective date Jan. 3,
2002). For additional OMB guidance on agency surveys see also Office
of Management and Budget, Standards and Guidelines for Statistical
Surveys (September 2006) and Questions and Answers When Designing
Surveys for Information Collections (January 2006). For Labor
guidance, see Department of Labor, Guidelines for Ensuring and
Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of
Information Disseminated by the Department of Labor (Oct. 1, 2002).
[9] We conducted site visits to the following Labor regional offices:
Northeast region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), Southeast region
(Atlanta, Georgia), and Southwest region (Dallas, Texas). The other
two regional offices are the Midwest region (Chicago, Illinois) and
the West region (San Francisco, California).
[10] The four surveys were Florida 2005, Maryland 2005, Tennessee
2006, and West Texas Metropolitan 2006.
[11] We reviewed the wage rates that were published as of November 12,
2010.
[12] Interested third parties include contractor associations; labor
unions; federal, state, and local agencies; and members of Congress.
[13] Labor conducts statewide surveys except in large states, such as
California and Texas.
[14] Highway construction includes the construction, alteration, or
repair of roads, streets, highways, runways, parking areas, and other
similar projects that are not associated with building or heavy
construction. Residential construction includes single-family homes
and apartment buildings that are not more than four stories. If a
structure that houses people is more than four stories or if it houses
machinery, equipment, or supplies it is considered building
construction. Heavy construction generally includes any project that
does not fall into the other three categories--for example, dam and
sewer projects.
[15] 29 C.F.R. § 1.2(a)(1).
[16] Key job classifications across all four construction types
include bricklayer, boilermaker, carpenter, cement mason, electrician,
heat and frost insulator/asbestos worker/pipe insulator, iron worker,
laborer-common, painter, pipefitter, plumber, power equipment
operator, roofer, sheet metal worker, tile setter, and truck driver.
[17] 40 U.S.C. § 3142(b).
[18] 29 C.F.R. § 1.7(a).
[19] We were unable to analyze four surveys because of unclear dates
in Labor's data.
[20] The highway surveys were Florida 2009, New Mexico 2009, North
Carolina 2009, Oklahoma 2009, South Carolina 2009, Louisiana 2010,
Nebraska 2010, and New Hampshire 2010. The building and heavy surveys
were Montana 2009, North Carolina 2009, West Virginia 2009, and
Wyoming 2009.
[21] While a census survey attempts to collect data from the entire
population, a sample survey collects data from a subset or sample of
the population. When the sample is selected by a probability sampling
method such that each member of the population has a known chance of
being selected and that information is used with proper estimation
techniques, the results are generalizable to the entire population
with a known level of confidence in the precision of the estimates.
Further, by reducing the data collection effort, more can be done to
assure other aspects of data quality.
[22] As of November 12, 2010.
[23] 29 C.F.R. § 1.7(a).
[24] We analyzed wage rates for key job classifications because wage
rates for nonkey job classifications can only be issued at the county
or group level, but not at the supergroup or state level.
[25] Regional office officials said they may combine rates from
counties with the exact same wage and fringe benefit data in their
final wage compilation report, the WD-22. However, the rates being
combined may have been calculated at different geographic levels--for
example, one county's rates may have been calculated at the group
level while another county's rates my have been calculated at the
supergroup level. The geographic level at which rates for combined
counties were calculated is not reported on the WD-22; therefore, we
reported the percentage of these rates separately.
[26] The Bureau of Economic Analysis is an agency within the
Department of Commerce. It collects source data, conducts research and
analysis, develops and implements estimation methodologies, and
disseminates economic statistics to the public.
[27] We did not ask the representatives from academia about the form
because they generally would not be asked to fill it out as a survey
respondent.
[28] The four surveys we reviewed--Florida 2005, Maryland 2005,
Tennessee 2006, and West Texas Metropolitan 2006--were conducted prior
to new survey processes being implemented. No verification reports for
surveys conducted under the new processes were available in time for
our review.
[29] We did not ask the representatives from academia about pre-survey
briefings because they would generally not be one of the groups Labor
would notify about an upcoming survey.
[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 Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
