This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1051T 
entitled 'Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further 
Improve the Workforce System' which was released on June 28, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong 
Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on Education and Labor, House 
of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

For Release on Delivery Expected at 1:30 p.m. EDT: 

Thursday, June 28, 2007: 

Workforce Investment Act: 

Additional Actions Would Further Improve the Workforce System: 

Statement of Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

GAO-07-1051T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-1051T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on 
Education and Labor, House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Since the Workforce Investment Actís (WIA) enactment in 1998, GAO has 
issued numerous reports that included recommendations regarding many 
aspects of WIA, including performance measures and accountability, 
funding formulas and spending, one-stop centers, and training, as well 
as services provided to specific populations, such as dislocated 
workers, youth, and employers. Collectively, these studies employed an 
array of data collection techniques, including surveys to state and 
local workforce officials and private sector employers; site visits; 
interviews with local, state, and Labor officials; and analysis of 
Labor data and documents. This testimony draws upon the results of 
these reports, issued between 2000 and 2007, as well as GAOís ongoing 
work on one-stop infrastructure, and discusses issues raised and 
recommendations made. Specifically, the testimony addresses (1) 
progress made by federal, state, and local officials in implementing 
key provisions of WIA; and (2) challenges that remain in implementing 
an integrated employment and training system. 

GAO is making no new recommendations at this time. 

What GAO Found: 

Seven years after implementing the workforce investment system under 
WIA, the systemís infrastructure continues to evolve. Nationwide, the 
number of comprehensive one-stop centers has decreased somewhat, but 
not uniformly across states. States generally reported increased 
availability of services for some of the mandatory programs at 
comprehensive one-stop centers. However, despite WIAís requirement that 
all mandatory partners provide services through the one-stop system, 
some states have maintained a completely separate system for delivering 
services for Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Services. Adults and 
dislocated workers receive a wide range of services through the one-
stop system. Local areas used about 40 percent of their WIA funds in 
2003 to provide training services to an estimated 416,000 participants, 
but the vast majority of job seekers receive services other than 
training. States and local areas have generally focused their youth 
services on in-school youth and have found it difficult to recruit and 
retain out-of-school youth. Most medium and large employers are aware 
of and use the system and are quite satisfied with its services, but 
they generally use one-stop centers to fill their needs for low-skilled 
workers. 

Despite the successes state and local officials have had since WIAís 
implementation, some aspects of the law and other factors have hampered 
their efforts. Funding issues continue to stymie the system. WIAís 
formulas that are used to allocate funds to states do not reflect 
current program design and have caused wide fluctuations in funding 
levels from year to year that do not reflect actual layoff activity. In 
addition, Laborís focus on expenditures without including obligations 
overestimates the amount of funds available to provide services at the 
local level. Moreover, little is known about what the system is 
achieving because only a small minority of participants are captured in 
the performance measures, and Labor has not conducted an impact study 
to assess the effectiveness of the one-stop system, as required under 
WIA. Labor has taken some steps to improve guidance and communication, 
but does not involve key stakeholders in the development of some major 
initiatives and provides too little time for states and local areas to 
implement them. We are suggesting that Congress consider taking steps 
to improve the stability of the funding and enhance the data available 
on people who use the system. In addition, in our past work, we have 
recommended that Labor use obligations when estimating statesí 
available funds, that it comply with the requirements of WIA and 
conduct an impact evaluation, and that it consider alternative 
approaches in implementing new initiatives that involve ongoing 
consultation with key stakeholders. Labor has taken little action on 
these recommendations. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1051T]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at (202) 
512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting me here today to present the findings from our 
work on the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). As you know, WIA 
represented a significant departure from earlier job training programs. 
Passed in 1998 and implemented by most states in July 2000, it was 
designed to unify a fragmented employment and training system and 
create a single, universal system--a one-stop system that could serve 
the needs of all job seekers and employers. WIA sought to streamline 
the delivery of federally funded employment and training services, 
enabling job seekers to make informed choices among training providers 
and course offerings, and enhancing the private sector role in the 
workforce system. WIA gave states and localities flexibility in 
deciding how to implement the one-stop system, allowing local one-stops 
to tailor their systems to local needs. Four separate federal agencies-
-the Departments of Labor (Labor), Health and Human Services (HHS), 
Education, and Housing and Urban Development (HUD)--fund 16 categories 
of programs that are required to provide services through the one-stop 
system. In addition to programs that are required to take part in the 
new system, Labor encourages states and localities to include optional 
partners, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), in 
order to better meet the specific workforce development needs of their 
local areas. Labor takes a lead role in this system and is responsible 
for assessing the effectiveness of Labor-funded programs and for 
providing guidance and technical assistance to states and localities as 
programs deliver their services through the one-stop system. 

Since WIA was enacted, we have issued numerous reports that included 
recommendations regarding many aspects of WIA, including performance 
measures and accountability, funding formulas and spending, one-stop 
centers, and training, as well as services provided to specific 
populations, such as dislocated workers, youth, and employers. As the 
Congress considers reauthorizing WIA, you asked us to summarize our 
findings and recommendations and provide our assessment of the current 
status of the system envisioned under WIA. My testimony today will 
discuss (1) progress made by federal, state, and local officials in 
implementing key provisions of WIA and (2) challenges that remain in 
implementing an integrated employment and training system. To address 
these objectives, we drew upon reports we issued between 2000 and 2007, 
as well as our ongoing work for you on one-stop center 
infrastructure.[Footnote 1] In our prior work on WIA, we have employed 
an array of methodologies, including surveys of state and local 
workforce officials and private sector employers; site visits to state 
and local areas; interviews with local, state, and Labor officials; and 
analysis of Labor's data and documents. Our new work on one-stop center 
infrastructure is based primarily on an electronic survey of state 
workforce officials in 50 states conducted between April and May 2007. 
In addition to our survey, we conducted a literature review to identify 
findings from other studies--including those sponsored by Labor--that 
examined one-stop delivery systems. We conducted our work in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

In summary, the workforce system's infrastructure and service 
strategies have evolved under WIA to meet the needs of employers and 
job seekers, but congressional action could further the system's 
development. While the number of comprehensive one-stop centers has 
decreased somewhat over the past six years, states generally reported 
increased availability of services for some of the mandatory programs 
at comprehensive one-stop centers. Adults and dislocated workers 
receive a wide range of services through the one-stop system, but 
states and local areas have generally focused their youth services on 
in-school youth, finding it difficult to recruit and retain out-of- 
school youth. Most medium and large employers are aware of and use the 
system and are quite satisfied with its services, but they generally 
use one-stop centers to fill their needs for low-skilled workers. 
Despite the progress states and local areas have made in developing the 
system, key aspects of the program could be improved. Funding issues 
continue to hamper the system, in part because WIA's Dislocated Worker 
funding formula causes wide fluctuations in funding levels from year to 
year that do not reflect actual layoff activity. In addition, Labor's 
focus on expenditures without including obligations overestimates the 
amount of funds available to provide services at the local level. 
Moreover, little is known about what the system is achieving because 
only a small minority of participants are captured in the performance 
measures and Labor has not conducted an impact study to assess the 
effectiveness of the one-stop system, as required under WIA. Labor has 
taken some steps to improve guidance and communication, but has not 
involved key stakeholders in the development of some of its major 
initiatives and provided too little time for states and local areas to 
implement them. 

Background: 

The Workforce Investment Act created a new, comprehensive workforce 
investment system designed to change the way employment and training 
services are delivered. When WIA was enacted in 1998, it replaced the 
Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) with three new programs--Adult, 
Dislocated Worker, and Youth--that allow for a broader range of 
services to the general public, no longer using income to determine 
eligibility for all program services. These new programs no longer 
focused exclusively on training, but provided for three tiers, or 
levels, of service for adults and dislocated workers: core, intensive, 
and training. Core services include basic services such as job searches 
and labor market information. These activities may be self-service or 
require some staff assistance. Intensive services include such 
activities as comprehensive assessment and case management, as well as 
classes in literacy, conflict resolution, work skills, and those 
leading to general equivalency diploma (GED)--activities that require 
greater staff involvement. Training services include such activities as 
occupational skills or on-the-job training. These tiers of WIA-funded 
services are provided sequentially. That is, in order to receive 
intensive services, job seekers must first demonstrate that core 
services alone will not lead to getting a job that will provide self- 
sufficiency. Similarly, to receive training services, a job seeker must 
show that core and intensive services will not lead to such a job. 
Unlike prior systems, WIA requires that individuals eligible for 
training under the Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs receive 
vouchers--called Individual Training Accounts--which they can use for 
the training provider and course offering of their choice, within 
certain limitations. 

In addition to establishing the three new programs, WIA requires that 
services for these programs, along with those of a number of other 
employment and training programs, be provided through a single service 
delivery system--the one-stop system. States were required to implement 
these changes by July 1, 2000. Sixteen categories of programs from four 
separate federal agencies must provide services through the system. 
(See table 1.) 

Table 1: WIA's Mandatory Programs and Related Federal Agencies: 

Federal agency: Department of Labor; 
Mandatory program: 
WIA Adult. 
WIA Dislocated Worker. 
WIA Youth. 
Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser). 
Trade adjustment assistance programs. 
Veterans' employment and training programs. 
Unemployment Insurance. 
Job Corps. 
Senior Community Service Employment Program. 
Employment and training for migrant and seasonal farm workers. 
Employment and training for Native Americans. 

Federal agency: Department of Education; 
Mandatory program: 
Vocational Rehabilitation Program. 
Adult Education and Literacy. 
Vocational Education (Perkins Act). 

Federal agency: Department of Health and Human Services; 
Mandatory program: Community Services Block Grant. 

Federal agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development; 
Mandatory program: HUD-administered employment and training. 

Source: GAO-03-589 and Labor. 

Note: Although WIA required 17 mandatory programs to participate in the 
one-stop system, the Welfare-to-Work program no longer exists, reducing 
the total to 16 mandatory programs. 

[End of table] 

Each local area must have at least one comprehensive one-stop center 
where core services for all mandatory programs are accessible. WIA 
allows flexibility in the way these mandatory partners provide services 
through the one-stop system, allowing colocation, electronic linkages, 
or referrals to off-site partner programs. While WIA requires these 
mandatory partners to participate, it does not provide additional funds 
to operate one-stop systems and support one-stop partnerships. As a 
result, mandatory partners are expected to share the costs of 
developing and operating one-stop centers. In addition to mandatory 
partners, one-stop centers have the flexibility to include other 
partners in the one-stop system to better meet specific state and local 
workforce development needs. Services may also be provided at 
affiliated sites, defined as designated locations that provide access 
to at least one employment and training program. 

About $3.3 billion was appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for the three 
WIA programs--Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth. The formulas for 
distributing these funds to the states were left largely unchanged from 
those used to distribute funds under the predecessor program, JTPA, and 
are based on such factors as unemployment rates and the relative number 
of low-income adults and youth in the population. In order to receive 
their full funding allocations, states must report on the performance 
of their three WIA programs. WIA requires that performance measures 
gauge program results in the areas of job placement, retention, 
earnings, skill attainment and customer satisfaction, largely through 
the use of Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records.[Footnote 2] 
Labor's guidance requires that job seekers be tracked for outcomes when 
they begin receiving core services that require significant staff 
assistance. States are held accountable by Labor for their performance 
and may receive incentive funds or suffer financial sanctions based on 
whether they meet performance levels. WIA requires states to negotiate 
with Labor to establish expected performance levels for each measure. 
While WIA established performance measures for the three WIA-funded 
programs, it did not establish any comprehensive measures to assess the 
overall performance of the one-stop system. 

System Infrastructure and Service Strategies Have Evolved To Meet the 
Needs of Job Seekers and Employers: 

Seven years after the implementation of the workforce investment system 
under WIA, the system's infrastructure continues to evolve. Nationwide, 
the number of comprehensive one-stop centers has decreased somewhat, 
but not uniformly across states. States generally reported increased 
availability of services for some of the mandatory programs at 
comprehensive one-stop centers. But despite WIA's requirement that all 
mandatory partners provide services through the one-stop system, some 
states have maintained a completely separate system for delivering 
services for Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Services (ES). Adults and 
dislocated workers receive a wide range of services through the one- 
stop system, but states and local areas have generally focused their 
youth services on in-school youth, finding it difficult to recruit and 
retain out-of-school youth. Most medium and large employers are aware 
of and use the system and are quite satisfied with its services, but 
they generally use one-stop centers to fill their needs for low-skilled 
workers. 

WIA's Service Delivery Infrastructure Continues to Evolve: 

WIA's service delivery infrastructure has continued to evolve since we 
last reviewed it in 2001. Over the 6-year period, nationwide, the 
number of one-stop centers--both comprehensive and satellite--has 
declined, a fact that states most often attributed to a decrease in 
funding. The number of comprehensive centers declined from a high of 
1,756 in 2001 to 1,637 in 2007. However, this trend is not uniform 
across states. Ten states reported an increase in comprehensive centers 
over the last 4 years. For example, Montana reported a 600 percent 
increase in centers as part of a statewide restructuring of its one- 
stop delivery system that involved converting former satellite and 
affiliated sites into comprehensive one-stop centers. States that 
reported an increase in the number of comprehensive one-stop centers 
often cited a rise in demand for services as the reason for the 
increase. 

Services for mandatory programs are increasingly available through the 
one-stop system in 2007, though not always on-site. States continue to 
have services for two key programs--WIA Adult and Dislocated Workers-- 
available on-site at the majority of the one-stop centers. In addition, 
30 states reported that TANF services were generally available on-site 
at a typical comprehensive one-stop center, and 3 more states reported 
they were typically on-site at satellites. The on-site availability of 
some other programs--such as, Job Corps, Migrant and Seasonal 
Farmworkers, Senior Community Service and Employment Program, and Adult 
Education and Literacy--declined slightly between 2001 and 2007. 
However, the overall availability of these programs' services 
increased, largely because of substantial increases in access through 
electronic linkages and referrals. 

Despite the increased availability of some programs at one-stop 
centers, some states have not fully integrated all of their Wagner- 
Peyser-funded Employment Service into the system. Six states reported 
in our 2007 survey that they operate stand-alone Employment Service 
offices, all completely outside the one-stop system. Another four 
states reported having at least some stand-alone offices outside the 
system (see fig. 1). At the same time, states that operate stand-alone 
offices also report providing services on-site at the majority of their 
one-stops. Labor has expressed concern that stand-alone Employment 
Service offices cause confusion for individuals and employers and 
promote duplication of effort and inefficient use of resources. Given 
the concern over resources, we asked states to provide estimates of 
their state's total Employment Service allotment that was used to 
support the infrastructure of the stand-alone offices. Only 6 states 
could provide them, and the overall average was about 5 percent. 
However, the state with the most stand-alone ES offices reported that 
it had not used any of its ES allotment to support the infrastructure 
of these offices. Instead, this state financed the infrastructure costs 
of its 30 stand-alone offices with state general funds. Despite their 
concerns, Labor officials say that they lack the authority to prohibit 
stand-alone ES offices. 

Figure 1: In 2007, 18 States Have Stand-alone ES Offices, Six States 
Operate Them Completely Outside the System: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO survey of 50 states. 

[End of figure] 

While most states used multiple program funds to finance the operation 
of their one-stops, WIA and ES continue to be the two programs most 
often cited as funding sources used to cover one-stop infrastructure-- 
or nonpersonnel--costs. In program year 2005, the most recent year for 
which data are available, 23 states reported that WIA was the top 
funding source used to support infrastructure, while 19 states 
identified the Employment Service. Of the eight states remaining, three 
cited TANF as the top funding source, two cited Unemployment Insurance, 
one cited WIA state funds, and two states could not provide this 
information. States reported less reliance on other programs to fund 
the one-stop infrastructure in 2005 than in the past (see table 2). For 
example, the number of states that reported using TANF funds at all to 
cover infrastructure costs declined from 36 to 27. 

Table 2: Programs Funding One-Stop Center Infrastructure Costs: 

Labor. 

Program: WIA Title I/JTPA; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2000: 50; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2001: 50; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year 
2005: 50. 

Program: ES (Wagner-Peyser); 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2000: 49; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2001: 50; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year 
2005: 50. 

Program: Veterans' Employment and Training program; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2000: 43; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2001: 43; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year 
2005: 41. 

Program: NAFTA and Trade/Trade Adjustment Assistance; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2000: 39; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2001: 41; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year 
2005: 30. 

Program: Unemployment Insurance; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2000: 39; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2001: 39; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year 
2005: 34. 

Program: Welfare-to-Work grants; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2000: 39; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2001: 38; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year 
2005: N/A. 

Program: One-stop implementation grants; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2000: 37; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2001: N/A; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year 
2005: N/A. 

Program: Job Corps; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2000: 20; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2001: 24; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year 
2005: 11. 

Education. 

Program: Vocational rehabilitation; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2000: 37; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2001: 37; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year 
2005: 24. 

Program: Adult education and literacy; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2000: 29; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2001: 29; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year 
2005: 15. 

Program: Vocational education; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2000: 24; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2001: 19; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year 
2005: N/A. 

Other. 

Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2000: 33; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2001: 36; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year 
2005: 27. 

Program: Community colleges; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2000: N/A; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2001: N/A; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year 
2005: 11. 

Program: State funds; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2000: N/A; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Fiscal Year 
2001: 31; 
Number of states using program to fund infrastructure, Program Year 
2005: 24. 

Source: Based on GAO surveys conducted in 2000, 2001, and 2007. 

N/A = not applicable. 

[End of table] 

States and Local Areas Have Sought to Tailor Services to Meet the Needs 
of Customers: 

WIA provides the flexibility to states and local areas to develop 
approaches for serving job seekers and employers that best meet local 
needs. In our work we have found some broad trends in services, but 
there continues to be wide variation across the country in the mix of 
services and how they are provided. Local areas use a substantial 
portion of their WIA funds to provide training to adults and dislocated 
workers, but use even more to provide the services that go beyond 
training, including case management, assessment, and supportive 
services. However, serving youth, particularly out-of-school youth, has 
proven challenging. WIA increased the focus on the employer as 
customer, and we found that most medium and large employers are aware 
of and use the one-stop. However, employers look to the one-stop system 
mostly to help fill their needs for low-skilled workers, in part 
because they assume that most workers available through the system are 
low-skilled. 

Services to adults and dislocated workers involve more than training. 
Despite early concerns about the extent of training, we found that 
substantial WIA funds were being used to fund training. Local boards 
used about 40 percent of the approximately $2.4 billion in WIA funds 
they had available in program year 2003 to provide training services to 
an estimated 416,000 WIA participants, primarily in occupational 
skills.[Footnote 3] However, the vast majority of job seekers receive 
self-assisted core services, not training. Not everyone needs or wants 
additional training. And even when they do, they need help deciding 
what type of training would best match their skill level while at the 
same time meet local labor market needs--help that includes information 
on job openings, comprehensive assessments, individual counseling, and 
supportive services, such as transportation and child care. Of the 
funds available in program year 2003, 60 percent was used to pay for 
these other program costs, as well as to cover the cost of 
administering the program.[Footnote 4] 

Providing services to youth has been challenging for local areas. Local 
areas often focus their WIA youth resources on serving in-school youth, 
often using a range of approaches to prevent academic failure and 
school dropouts. Out-of-school youth are viewed as difficult to serve, 
in part because they are difficult to locate in the community and they 
face particularly difficult barriers to employment and education, 
including low levels of academic attainment, limited work experience, 
and a scarcity of jobs in the community. The 5-year Youth Opportunity 
Grants program, authorized under WIA was designed, in part, to enhance 
the local infrastructure of youth services, particularly in high- 
poverty areas. Grantees offered participants a range of youth services-
-education, occupational skills training, leadership development, and 
support services. They set up centers that varied widely. To reach the 
hard-to-serve target population, grantees used a variety of recruiting 
techniques, ranging from the conventional to the innovative. For 
example, some grantees conducted community walking campaigns using 
staff to saturate shopping malls and other areas where youth 
congregate. Conditions in the communities such as violence and lack of 
jobs presented a challenge to most grantees, but they took advantage of 
the local discretion built into the program to develop strategies to 
address them. Grantees and others reported that the participants and 
their communities made progress toward the education and employment 
goals of the program. However, a formal assessment of the program's 
impact, while under way, has not yet been released by Labor. Although 
Labor originally planned to continue to add grantees, funding for the 
program was eliminated in the budget for fiscal year 2004.[Footnote 5] 

Employers mostly use one-stop centers to fill their needs for low- 
skilled workers. Most medium and large employers are aware of and use 
the system and are satisfied with its services (see fig 2). Regardless 
of size, just over 70 percent of employers responding to our 2006 
survey reported that they hired a small percentage of their employees-
-about 9 percent--through one-stops. Two-thirds of those they hired 
were low-skilled workers, in part because they thought the labor 
available from the one-stops was mostly low-skilled. Employers told us 
they would hire more job seekers from the one-stop labor pools if the 
job seekers had the skills for which they were looking. Most employers 
used the centers' job posting service, fewer made use of the one-stops' 
physical space or job applicant screening services. Still, when 
employers did take advantage of services, they generally reported that 
they were satisfied with the services and found them useful because 
they produced positive results and saved them time and money. When 
employers did not use a particular one-stop service, in most cases they 
said that they either were not aware that the one-stop provided the 
service, or said they obtained it elsewhere, or said that they carried 
through on their own.[Footnote 6] 

Figure 2: Percentage of Business Establishments Aware of, Using, and 
Satisfied with One-Stops: 

[see PDF for Image] 

Source: GAO 2004 survey of private sector business establishments in 
the United States. 

[End of figure] 

Additional Action Could Help System Development: 

Despite the successes state and local officials have had since WIA's 
implementation, some aspects of the law and other factors have hampered 
their efforts. First, funding issues continue to stymie the system. For 
example, the formulas in WIA that are used to allocate funds to states 
do not reflect current program design and have caused wide fluctuations 
in funding levels from year to year. In addition, Labor's focus on 
expenditures without including obligations overestimates the amount of 
funds available to provide services at the local level. Second, the 
performance measurement system is flawed and little is known about what 
WIA has achieved. Labor has taken some steps to improve guidance and 
communication, but does not involve key stakeholders in the development 
of some major initiatives and provides too little time for states and 
local areas to implement them. 

Funding Allocation and Spending Information Do Not Reflect Program 
Structure: 

As states and localities have implemented WIA, they have been hampered 
by funding issues, including statutory funding formulas that are 
flawed. As a result, states' funding levels may not always be 
consistent with the actual demand for services. In previous work, we 
identified several issues associated with the current funding 
formulas.[Footnote 7] First, formula factors used to allocate funds are 
not aligned with the target populations for these programs.[Footnote 8] 
Second, allocations may not reflect current labor market conditions 
because there are time lags between when the data are collected and 
when the allocations become available to states. Third, the formula for 
the Dislocated Worker program is especially problematic, because it 
causes funding levels to suffer from excessive and unwarranted 
volatility unrelated to a state's actual layoff activity. Several 
aspects of the Dislocated Worker formula contribute to funding 
volatility and to the seeming lack of consistency between dislocation 
and funding. The excess unemployment factor has a threshold effect-- 
states may or may not qualify for the one-third of funds allocated 
under this factor in a given year, based on whether or not they meet 
the threshold condition of having at least 4.5 percent unemployment 
statewide. In a study we conducted in 2003, we compared dislocation 
activity and funding levels for several states. In one example, funding 
decreased in one year while dislocation activity increased by over 40 
percent (see fig. 3). This volatility could be mitigated by provisions 
such as "hold harmless" and "stop gain" constraints that limit changes 
in funding to within a particular range of each state's prior year 
allocation. The Adult formula includes such constraints, setting the 
hold harmless at 90 percent and the stop gain at 130 percent.[Footnote 
9] 

Figure 3: An Example of the Mismatch between Dislocated Worker Funding 
Allocation and Dislocation Activity--Massachusetts: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics and 
Employment and Training Administration. 

[End of figure] 

In addition to issues related to funding allocation, the process used 
to determine states' available funds considers only expenditures and 
does not take into account the role of obligations in the current 
program structure. Our analysis of Labor's data from program year 2003 
and beyond indicates that states are spending their WIA funds within 
the authorized 3-year period. Nationwide, states spent over 66 percent 
of their program year 2003 WIA funds in the first year--an increase 
from the 55 percent since our 2002 report. In fact, almost all program 
funds allocated in program year 2003 were spent by states within 2 
years. By contrast, Labor's estimate of expenditure rates suggests that 
states are not spending their funds as quickly because the estimate is 
based on all funds states currently have available--from older funds 
carried in from prior program years to those only recently distributed. 
Moreover, many of the remaining funds carried over may have already 
been obligated--or committed through contracts for goods and services 
for which a payment has not yet been made. When we examined recent 
national data on the amount of WIA funds states are carrying in from 
previous program years, we found that, overall, the amount of carryover 
funds is decreasing--from $1.4 billion into program year 2003 to $1.1 
billion into program year 2005. One explanation for the decline may be 
that obligations are being converted to expenditures. 

In our 2002 report, we also noted that Labor's data lacked consistent 
information on obligations because states were not all using the same 
definition for obligations in what they reported to Labor. Labor's 
guidance was unclear and did not specify whether obligations made at 
the local level--the point at which services are delivered--should be 
included. We recommended that Labor clarify the guidance to standardize 
the reporting of obligations and use this guidance when estimating 
states' available funds. Labor issued revised guidance in 2002, but 
continues to rely on expenditure data in establishing its estimates. In 
so doing, it overestimates the funds states have available to spend and 
ignores the role of obligations in the current workforce investment 
system. Labor's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recently 
concurred, noting that obligations provide a more useful measure for 
assessing states' WIA funding status if obligations accurately reflect 
legally committed funds and are consistently reported.[Footnote 10] 

Little Is Known about What the System Is Achieving: 

We have little information at a national level about what the workforce 
investment system under WIA achieves. Outcome data do not provide a 
complete picture of WIA services. The data reflect only a small portion 
of those who receive WIA services and contain no information on 
services to employers. Furthermore, WIA performance data are not 
comparable across states and localities, in part because of 
inconsistent policies in tracking participants for outcomes. In 
addition, the use of wage records to calculate outcomes is no longer 
consistent across states. Labor and states have made progress in 
measuring WIA performance in a number of areas, including Labor's data 
validation initiative and the move to common measures. Labor's proposed 
integrated data system holds promise in improving data reporting, but 
it is unclear whether it will be implemented as currently proposed. 
Furthermore, Labor has not yet conducted an impact evaluation, as 
required by WIA. 

WIA performance data do not include information on all customers 
receiving services. Currently Labor has only limited information on 
certain job seekers--those who use only self-services--and on 
employers. WIA excludes job seekers who receive core services that are 
self-service or informational in nature from being included in the 
performance information. Thus, only a small proportion of the job 
seeker population who receive services at one-stops are actually 
reflected in WIA outcome data, making it difficult to know what the 
overall program is achieving. Customers who use self-services are 
estimated to be the largest portion of those served under WIA. In a 
2004 study, we reported that some estimates show only about 5.5 percent 
of the individuals who walked into a one-stop were actually registered 
for WIA and tracked for outcomes. Furthermore, Labor has limited 
information about employer involvement in the one-stop system. Although 
Labor measures employers' satisfaction, this measure does not provide 
information on how employers use the system. Labor officials told us 
that they do not rely on this information for any purpose, and the 
information is too general for states and local areas to use. 

WIA performance data are not comparable across states and localities. 
Because not all job seekers are included in WIA's outcome measures, 
states and local areas must decide when to begin tracking participants 
for outcomes--a decision that has led to outcome data that are not 
comparable across states and local areas. The guidance available to 
states at the time WIA was first implemented was open to interpretation 
in some key areas. For example, the guidance told states to register 
and track for outcomes all adults and dislocated workers who receive 
core services that require significant staff assistance, but states 
could decide what constituted significant staff assistance. As a 
result, states and local areas have differed on whom they track and for 
how long--sometimes beginning the process when participants receive 
core services, and at other times not until they receive more intensive 
services. We have recommended that Labor determine a standard point of 
registration and monitor states to ensure they comply. Labor has taken 
some actions, but registration remains an issue.[Footnote 11] 

Furthermore, data are not comparable because the availability of wage 
records to calculate outcomes is no longer consistent across states. UI 
wage records--the primary data source for tracking WIA performance-- 
provide a fairly consistent national view of WIA performance. At the 
same time, UI wage records cannot be readily used to track job seekers 
who get jobs in other states unless states share data. The Wage Record 
Interchange System (WRIS) was developed to allow states to share UI 
wage records and account for job seekers who participate in one state's 
employment programs but get jobs in another state. In recent years, all 
states but one participated in WRIS while it was operated by the 
nonprofit National Association of State Workforce Agencies. However, in 
July 2006, Labor assumed responsibility for administering WRIS, and 
many states have withdrawn, in part because of a perceived conflict of 
interest between Labor's role in enforcing federal law and the states' 
role in protecting the confidentiality of their data. As of March 2007, 
only 30 states were participating in the program, and it is unknown if 
and when the other states will enter the data-sharing agreement. As a 
result, performance information in almost half the states may not 
include employment outcomes for job seekers who found jobs outside the 
states in which they received services.[Footnote 12] 

Labor has taken steps to address issues related to the quality of WIA 
performance data, but further action is needed. Both Labor's OIG and 
our early studies of WIA raised issues on the quality of the 
performance data, and Labor has taken steps aimed at addressing these 
issues. In October 2004, Labor began requiring states to implement new 
data validation procedures for WIA performance data. This process 
requires states to conduct two types of validation: (1) data element 
validation--reviewing samples of WIA participant files, and (2) report 
validation--assessing whether states' software accurately calculated 
performance outcomes. While it is too soon to fully assess whether 
Labor's efforts have improved data quality, officials in most states 
have reported that Labor's new requirements have helped increase 
awareness of data accuracy and reliability at both the state and local 
levels.[Footnote 13] 

In addition, in 2005, in response to an Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) initiative, Labor began requiring states to implement a common 
set of performance measures for its employment and training programs, 
including WIA.[Footnote 14] These measures include an entered 
employment rate, an employment retention rate, and an average earnings 
measure. Moving to the common measures has increased the comparability 
of outcome information across programs and made it easier for states 
and local areas to collect and report performance information across 
the full range of programs that provide services in the one-stop 
system. In addition, as part of the implementation of the common 
measures, states are for the first time required to collect and report 
a count of all WIA participants who use one-stop centers. This may help 
provide a more complete picture of the one-stop system.[Footnote 15] 

The shift to common measures could also affect services to some groups 
of job seekers. Historically, certain WIA performance measures-- 
primarily the earnings measure--have driven localities to serve only 
those customers who will help meet performance levels. For example, 
program providers have reported that the earnings measure provides a 
disincentive to enroll older workers in the program because of 
employment characteristics that may negatively affect program 
performance. In several local areas we visited for our study of older 
worker services, officials said they considered performance measures a 
barrier to enrolling older workers seeking part-time jobs because they 
would have lower earnings and therefore reduce measured program 
performance. Labor's shift from earnings gain to average earnings under 
the common measures may help reduce the extent to which the measures 
are a disincentive to serve certain populations. It remains unclear, 
however, how the new measure will affect the delivery of services to 
some groups, such as older workers, who are more likely to work part- 
time and have lower overall wages. Further action may be needed to help 
reduce the incentive to serve only those who will help meet performance 
levels. One approach that could help would be to systematically adjust 
expected performance levels to account for different populations and 
local economic conditions when negotiating performance. We have made 
such a recommendation to Labor, but little action has been 
taken.[Footnote 16] 

The Workforce Investment Streamlined Performance Reporting System 
(WISPR). Since 2004, Labor has been planning to implement an integrated 
data-reporting system that could greatly enhance the understanding of 
job seeker services and outcomes. WISPR represents a promising step 
forward in integrating and expanding program reporting, but it is 
unclear whether implementation will occur as proposed. If implemented, 
the system would integrate data reporting by using standardized 
reporting requirements across the Employment Service, WIA, veterans' 
state grant, and Trade Adjustment Assistance programs, and ultimately 
replace their existing reporting systems with a single reporting 
structure. Its integrated design would, for the first time, allow Labor 
and states to track an individual's progress through the one-stop 
system. In addition, the system would expand data collection and 
reporting in two key areas: the services provided to employers and 
estimates of the number of people who access the one-stop system but 
ultimately receive limited or no services from one-stop staff. On the 
basis of our preliminary review, WISPR appears to address many of the 
issues we've raised regarding the system's current performance data. 
However, concerns have been raised about challenges in implementing the 
new system, and at present, the timeline for WISPR's implementation 
remains unclear. Given the rapidly approaching July 1, 2007, 
implementation date, it appears likely that implementation will be 
delayed.[Footnote 17] 

No information exists on what works and for whom. Although Labor has 
improved its outcome data on job seekers who participate in its 
programs, these data alone cannot measure whether outcomes are a direct 
result of program participation, rather than external factors. For 
example, local labor market conditions may affect an individual's 
ability to find a job as much as or more than participation in an 
employment and training program. To measure the effects of a program, 
it is necessary to conduct an impact evaluation that would seek to 
assess whether the program itself led to participant outcomes. Since 
the full implementation of WIA in 2000--in which the one-stop system 
became the required means to provide most employment and training 
services--Labor has not made evaluating the impact of those services a 
research priority. While WIA required such an evaluation by 2005, Labor 
has declined to fund one in prior budgets. In 2004, we recommended that 
Labor comply with the requirements of WIA and conduct an impact 
evaluation of WIA services to better understand what services are most 
effective for improving outcomes.[Footnote 18] In response, Labor cited 
the need for program stability and proposed delaying an impact 
evaluation of WIA until after reauthorization. In its 2008 budget 
proposal, Labor identified an assessment of WIA's impact on employment, 
retention, and earnings outcomes for participants as an effort the 
agency would begin. As of May 2007, according to Labor officials, the 
agency had not yet begun to design the study.[Footnote 19] 

Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches to Implement New 
Initiatives: 

Labor has implemented some initiatives, such as national performance 
and reporting summits, to better communicate with states on changes in 
processes and procedures. However, guidance on policy changes has often 
come too late for states to be able to implement them. For example, in 
implementing common measures, states had very little time to make the 
necessary changes before they had to begin data collection and 
reporting using the new requirements. While Labor publicized its plans 
to adopt the common measures, states were notified only in late 
February 2005 that Labor planned to implement changes on July 1, 2005, 
and final guidance was not issued until April 15, 2005. This gave 
states 3 months or less to interpret federal guidance, coordinate with 
partners, modify information technology systems, issue new guidance, 
and train local area staff. In our 2005 report, we commented that 
rushed implementation could negatively affect data quality and 
compromise the potential benefits of the proposed changes.[Footnote 20] 

In addition to underestimating the cost, time, and effort required of 
states to make such changes, Labor has failed to solicit adequate 
stakeholder input when introducing some major new initiatives. For 
example, Labor's efforts to implement an integrated reporting system 
have been hampered by a lack of stakeholder input. In 2004, Labor first 
proposed a single, streamlined reporting system, known as the ETA 
Management Information and Longitudinal Evaluation system (EMILE) that 
would have replaced reporting systems for several Labor programs. While 
many states supported streamlined reporting, 36 states indicated that 
implementing the EMILE system, as proposed, would be very burdensome. 
Labor developed the system with only limited consultation with key 
stakeholders, including state officials, and as a result underestimated 
the magnitude and type of changes EMILE would require and the resources 
states would need in order to implement it. In response, Labor 
substantially modified this system's design. The modified system, now 
called WISPR, was set to be implemented on July 1, 2007. As with EMILE, 
however, concerns have been raised about challenges in implementing the 
new system, particularly the early implementation date. Some comments 
to OMB expressed the view that Labor had again underestimated the time 
states would need to revise policy, reprogram systems, and retrain 
staff. Given the rapidly approaching deadline and states' readiness to 
implement this system, it seems that this important initiative will 
likely be delayed again. In 2005, we recommended that Labor consider 
alternative approaches that involve ongoing consultation with key 
stakeholders as the agency seeks to implement its new initiatives. 

Concluding Observations: 

In the 7 years since most states fully implemented WIA, much progress 
has been made in developing and implementing a universal system. With 
notable exceptions, services for partner programs are becoming 
increasingly available through the one-stop system. States and local 
areas have used the flexibility under WIA to tailor services for where 
they are and for whom they serve. As the Congress moves toward 
reauthorizing WIA, consideration should be given to maintaining that 
state and local flexibility, whereby innovation and system ownership 
can be fostered. However, some aspects of WIA could be improved through 
legislative action. Our findings highlight two key areas: 

* Improving the data on people who use the system: Requiring all job 
seekers who receive WIA funded services to be included in the 
performance management system would improve understanding of who gets 
served and eliminate the ambiguity about who should be tracked and for 
how long. 

* Improving funding stability: If Congress chooses not to make broader 
funding formula changes, reducing the volatility in the Dislocated 
Worker allocation by requiring the use of hold harmless and stop gain 
provisions in the formula would help stabilize funding and better 
foster sound financial practices. 

Furthermore, we have made a number of recommendations to Labor to 
improve aspects of the current program. While Labor has implemented 
many of them, several key concerns remain unaddressed. Labor has not 
taken steps to: 

* more accurately estimate states' available fund by considering 
obligations as well as expenditures, 

* establish suitable performance levels for states to achieve by 
developing and implementing a systematic approach for adjusting 
expected performance to account for different populations and local 
economic conditions, 

* maximize the likelihood that new initiatives will be adopted in an 
achievable time frame by using a collaborative approach that engages 
all key stakeholders, and: 

* improve policymakers' understanding of what employment and training 
programs achieve by conducting important program evaluations, including 
an impact study on WIA, and releasing those findings in a timely way. 

In absence of actions by Labor on these issues, the Congress may wish 
to address them legislatively. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 
respond to any questions you or other members of the committee may have 
at this time. 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

For information regarding this testimony, please contact Sigurd R. 
Nilsen, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, at 
(202) 512-7215. Individuals who made key contributions to this 
testimony include Dianne Blank, Rebecca Woiwode, and Thomas McCabe. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve 
Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program Impact. GAO-
07-594. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2007. 

Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in 
Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help Gauge 
Employer Involvement. GAO-07-167. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2006. 

National Emergency Grants: Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award 
Timeliness and Data Collection, but Further Steps Can Improve Process. 
GAO-06-870. Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2006. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Most Workers in Five Layoffs Received 
Services, but Better Outreach Needed on New Benefits. GAO-06-43. 
Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2006. 

Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but 
Labor Needs to Make Data Available. GAO-06-53. Washington, D.C.: 
December 9, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to 
Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. GAO-06-82. 
Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but 
Little Is Known about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650. Washington, D.C.: 
June 29, 2005. 

Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment 
Services to Claimants. GAO-05-413. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches 
to Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements. GAO-05-539. 
Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied 
with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address 
Employers' Needs. GAO-05-259. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate 
Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts 
May Not Be Sufficient. GAO-05-54. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed 
Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO- 
04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004. 

National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve 
Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant 
Awards and Improve Data. GAO-04-496. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve Quality 
of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. GAO-04-308. 
Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004. 

Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Worker Training and 
Employment through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with Federally 
Funded Programs. GAO-04-282. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on 
State Allocations. GAO-03-1043. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to 
Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization. GAO-03- 
884T. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to 
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information 
Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for 
Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO-03-636. Washington, D.C.: 
April 25, 2003. 

Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs, 
but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers. 
GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003. 

Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job 
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other 
Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: States' Spending Is on Track, but Better 
Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting. GAO-03-239. Washington, 
D.C.: November 22, 2002. 

Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate 
Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective 
Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002. 

Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service 
Strategies, but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development. 
GAO-02-413. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002. 

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula 
Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274. Washington, D.C.: 
February 11, 2002. 

Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures 
to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness. GAO-02-275. 
Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002. 

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns 
over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2001. Also 
testimony GAO-02-94T. 

Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of 
TANF Services. GAO/T-HEHS-00-145. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] In particular, see GAO, Veterans' Employment and Training Service: 
Labor Could Improve Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and 
Program Impact, GAO-07-594 (Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2007); Workforce 
Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in Hiring Low- 
Skilled Workers, GAO-07-167 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 22, 2006); 
Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to 
Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed, GAO-06-82, 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2005); Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons 
Can Be Learned from Program, but Labor Needs to Make Data Available, 
GAO-06-53, (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2005); Workforce Investment Act: 
Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but Little Is Known about 
Training Outcomes, GAO-05-650, (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005); 
Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for 
Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers, GAO-03-636, (Washington, D.C.: 
Apr. 25, 2003); Workforce Investment Act: States' Spending Is on Track, 
but Better Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting, GAO-03-239, 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002); and Workforce Investment Act: 
Implementation Status and the Integration of TANF Services. GAO/T-HEHS- 
00-145. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000. 

[2] In some cases, supplemental data sources may be used when UI data 
are not available. Supplemental data may not be used for the earnings 
measure. 

[3] Our estimate may include some participants more than once, because 
some individuals may have received more than one type of training. 

[4] For more information, see GAO-05-650. 

[5] For more information see GAO, Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can 
Be Learned from Program, but Labor Needs to Make Data Available, GAO- 
06-53, (Washington, D.C.: December 9, 2005), and Workforce Investment 
Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve Quality of Performance 
Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services, GAO-04-308, (Washington, 
D.C.: February 23, 2004). 

[6] For more information, see GAO-07-167 and GAO, Workforce Investment 
Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied with One-Stop 
Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address Employers' 
Needs, GAO-05-259, (Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2005). 

[7] See GAO-03-636 and GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects 
of Alternative Formulas on State Allocations, GAO-03-1043, (Washington, 
D.C.: August 28, 2003). 

[8] The formulas for distributing these funds to the states were left 
largely unchanged from those used to distribute funds under JTPA. 

[9] For more information, see GAO-03-636. 

[10] For more information, see U.S. Department of Labor, Office of 
Inspector General, Semi-Annual Report to Congress, Volume 57 (October 
1, 2006-March 31, 2007), and GAO-03-239. 

[11] See GAO-06-82. 

[12] For more information, see GAO-07-594. 

[13] See GAO-06-82. 

[14] OMB established a set of common measures to be applied to most 
federally funded job training programs that share similar goals. 

[15] See GAO-06-82. 

[16] For more information, see GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States 
and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but 
Labor Could Do More to Help, GAO-04-657, (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 
2004). 

[17] For more information, see GAO-07-594. 

[18] See GAO-04-657. 

[19] See GAO-07-594. 

[20] For more information, see GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Labor 
Should Consider Alternative Approaches to Implement New Performance and 
Reporting Requirements, GAO-05-539, (Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005).

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: