This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-555 
entitled 'Employment and Training: Labor's Green Jobs Efforts 
Highlight Challenges of Targeted Training Programs for Emerging 
Industries' which was released on July 19, 2013. 

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: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

June 2013: 

Employment and Training: 

Labor's Green Jobs Efforts Highlight Challenges of Targeted Training 
Programs for Emerging Industries: 

GAO-13-555: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-555, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Labor received $500 million from the Recovery Act to help create, 
better understand, and provide training for jobs within the energy 
efficiency and renewable energy industries, commonly referred to as “
green jobs.” Since 2009, Labor has also “greened” existing programs 
and funded additional green jobs training grants and other efforts. 

In light of the amount of funding targeted to green programs within 
Labor, GAO examined: (1) what is known about the objectives and 
coordination of Labor’s green jobs efforts, (2) what type of green 
jobs training grantees provided and how selected grantees aligned 
their training to meet employers’ green jobs needs, (3) what is known 
about program outcomes and what challenges, if any, grantees faced in 
implementing their programs, and (4) what Labor has done to assist and 
monitor its green jobs grantees. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed 
relevant federal laws and regulations; surveyed selected offices 
within Labor using two questionnaires—-one for directly-funded green 
jobs efforts and one for other efforts; interviewed Labor officials 
and 11 out of 103 green jobs training grantees; and analyzed relevant 
Labor documents and data. 

What GAO Found: 

Of the $595 million identified by Labor as having been appropriated or 
allocated specifically for green jobs activities since 2009, 
approximately $501 million went toward efforts with training and 
support services as their primary objective, with much of that funding 
provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
(Recovery Act). Because the Recovery Act directed federal agencies to 
spend funds quickly and prudently, Labor implemented a number of high-
investment green jobs efforts simultaneously. As a result, in some 
cases, Recovery Act training programs were initiated prior to a full 
assessment of the demand for green jobs, which presented challenges 
for grantees. While Labor’s internal agencies initially communicated 
with each other and with other federal agencies after the Recovery Act 
was passed, most Recovery Act grants have ended or are winding down. 

Labor created its green jobs definitional framework to provide local 
flexibility, and grantees we interviewed broadly interpreted Labor’s 
framework to include any job that could be linked, directly or 
indirectly, to a beneficial environmental outcome. Labor’s training 
data show most participants were trained in construction or 
manufacturing. While the findings of our site visits are not 
generalizable, all grantees we interviewed said they had worked 
closely with local employers to align their training program with the 
green skills needs of local employers. Most grantees we interviewed 
also told us they had incorporated green elements into existing 
training programs aimed at traditional skills, such as teaching 
weatherization as part of a carpentry training program. 

The outcomes of Labor’s green jobs training programs remain uncertain, 
in part because data on final outcomes were not yet available for 
about 40 percent of grantees, as of the end of 2012. Analysis of 
grantees with final outcome data shows they collectively reported 
training slightly more individuals than they had projected, but job 
placements were at 55 percent of the target. Training-related job 
placement rates remain unknown because Labor’s Office of Inspector 
General (OIG) found these data unreliable. Grantees we interviewed 
were generally positive about Labor’s green job training programs, but 
most said they had faced challenges during implementation, including: 
(1) a lack of reliable green jobs labor market information, (2) 
insufficient time to meet grant requirements, (3) knowledge gaps 
surrounding green skills and changing energy policies, and (4) 
difficulty placing participants into green jobs, primarily due to the 
overall poor economy. 

Labor has provided technical assistance and taken steps to monitor 
green jobs training grantees through on-site monitoring visits and 
quarterly reviews. During these visits and reviews, Labor officials 
assessed grantee performance, such as by comparing reported program 
outcomes, including job placements, to targeted performance levels. 
However, Labor provided only limited guidance on how to document 
reported job placements. Labor officials required grantees with lower 
than projected performance levels to implement corrective action 
plans. In addition, Labor officials told us they have taken steps to 
improve the quality of grantee reported data, such as by forming an 
internal workgroup to identify ways to improve the technical 
assistance they provide to grantees on reporting performance outcomes. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that Labor identify lessons learned from the green jobs 
training programs to enhance its ability to implement such programs in 
emerging industries. Labor agreed with our recommendation. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-555]. For more 
information, contact Andrew Sherrill at (202) 512-7215 or 
sherrilla@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Labor Has Focused: 

Its Green Jobs Efforts Largely on Job Training: 

Selected Grantees Broadly Defined Green Jobs and Generally Added Green 
Elements to Existing Training Programs: 

Outcomes of Green Jobs Training Remain Uncertain, with Grantees Citing 
Implementation Challenges: 

Labor Has Assisted and Monitored Grantees, but Has Provided Limited 
Guidance on Outcome Documentation Requirements: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Data Collection for Labor's Green Jobs Efforts: 

Selected Grantees and Analysis of Program Outcome Data: 

Analysis of Labor's Technical Assistance and Monitoring Efforts: 

Appendix II: Green Jobs Efforts at Labor for Which Funds Were Reported 
Appropriated or Allocated Specifically for Green Jobs Activities since 
2009, by Focus Area and Office: 

Appendix III: Green Jobs Efforts at Labor for Which Funds Were Not 
Reported Appropriated or Allocated Specifically for Green Jobs 
Activities since 2009, by Focus Area and Office: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Green Jobs Grant Programs Funded by the Recovery Act: 

Table 2: Examples of Green Job Placement Based on Interviews with 
Selected Labor Green Jobs Grantees: 

Table 3: Lessons Learned Associated with Implementing Grant Programs 
for an Emerging Industry: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Key Elements of Labor's Green Framework for Defining Green 
Jobs: 

Figure 2: Funding for Green Jobs Efforts at Labor since 2009, by 
Office and Focus Area: 

Figure 3: Timeline of Selected Green Jobs Efforts at Labor: 

Figure 4: Green Jobs Training Grantees, by State: 

Figure 5: Green Jobs Training Grantees, by Organizational Type: 

Abbreviations: 

BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics: 

CFBNP: Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships: 

CoP: Community of Practice: 

EISA: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: 

Energy: Department of Energy: 

ETA: Employment and Training Administration: 

ETP: Energy Training Partnership Grants: 

GCBG: Green Capacity Building Grants: 

GEMS: Grant Electronic Management System: 

GGS: Green Goods and Services Survey: 

GJIF: Green Jobs Innovation Fund: 

GTP: Green Technologies and Practices Survey: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

HVAC Systems: Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Systems: 

ILAB: Bureau of International Labor Affairs: 

Labor: Department of Labor: 

MOU: Memorandums of Understanding: 

MSHA: Mine Safety and Health Administration: 

OA: Office of Apprenticeship: 

OASP: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy: 

ODEP: Office of Disability Employment Policy: 

OFCCP: Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs: 

OIG: Officer of the Inspector General: 

O*NET: Occupational Information Network: 

OPA: Office of Public Affairs: 

OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration: 

OWCP: Office of Workers' Compensation Programs: 

POP: Pathways Out of Poverty Grants: 

Recovery Act: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: 

SESP: State Energy Sector Partnership and Training Grants: 

SLMII: State Labor Market Information Improvement Grants: 

TA: Partnership Technical Assistance Partnership: 

UI: Unemployment Insurance: 

VETS: Veterans' Employment and Training Services: 

WB: Women's Bureau: 

WHD: Wage and Hour Division: 

WIA: Workforce Investment Act of 1998: 

[End of section] 

GAO:
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

June 19, 2013: 

The Honorable Lamar Alexander: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Michael Enzi: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Children and Families: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: 
United States Senate: 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) 
provided the Department of Labor (Labor) $500 million in funding aimed 
at training and placing workers into jobs in the "energy efficiency 
and renewable energy" industries,[Footnote 1] commonly referred to as 
"green jobs." While many of these grants have ended or are currently 
winding down, they were initiated as part of a strategy aimed at 
moving the United States toward greater energy independence and 
security, and green jobs research and training programs were created 
that were expected to help American workers develop the specialized 
skills they would need to find and maintain employment in green jobs. 
Congress passed the framework for this investment--the Green Jobs Act 
of 2007[Footnote 2]--more than 5 years ago, and according to Labor 
officials, funds for green jobs programs were not appropriated until 
the passage of the Recovery Act in 2009.[Footnote 3] More recently, 
Labor has launched a number of efforts to "green" several of its 
existing programs, and has funded additional green jobs training 
grants, including the $38 million Green Jobs Innovation Fund (GJIF) 
grant program. In total, Labor funded 103 green jobs training grantees 
through the three Recovery Act-funded green jobs training programs and 
the GJIF program. In light of the significant amount of funding 
targeted to green jobs training programs within Labor, this review 
examines: 

1. What is known about the objectives and coordination of Labor's 
green jobs efforts? 

2. What type of green jobs training did grantees provide and how did 
selected grantees align their training to meet employers' green jobs 
needs? 

3. What is known about program outcomes and what challenges, if any, 
did grantees face in implementing their programs? 

4. What has Labor done to assist and monitor its green jobs grantees? 

In addition, the Recovery Act requires that GAO conduct bimonthly 
reviews of how the act's funds are used by recipients.[Footnote 4] As 
part of this review, we examined the use of Recovery Act funds along 
with other federal funding. 

To address the first research question on the objectives and 
coordination of Labor's green jobs efforts, we compiled an inventory 
of Labor's green jobs efforts by requesting information from 14 
different offices across Labor. These 14 offices were selected based 
on the likelihood of their administering a green jobs effort or 
program.[Footnote 5] We asked these offices to list two separate sets 
of efforts: (1) efforts where federal funds were appropriated or 
allocated specifically for green jobs activities and, (2) efforts 
where federal funds were not specifically appropriated or allocated 
for green jobs activities, but where the office sought to incorporate 
green elements into either an existing program or ongoing activity. We 
gathered additional information on these efforts through two follow-up 
questionnaires and received fully completed questionnaires for nearly 
all efforts.[Footnote 6] 

Because the majority of Recovery Act funding for green jobs efforts 
was directed toward training programs, we focused much of our review 
on four grant programs--the three green jobs training programs funded 
by the Recovery Act (Energy Training Partnership grants, Pathways out 
of Poverty grants, and State Energy Sector Partnership and Training 
grants) as well as the newer Green Jobs Innovation Fund. To describe 
the characteristics of the 103 green jobs training grantees of these 
four grant programs, we also collected data from the department on the 
characteristics of green jobs grantees, including grantee location and 
organizational type. 

To better understand the type of green jobs training grantees 
provided, how grantees aligned their training to meet green jobs 
needs, and what challenges, if any, they faced in implementing their 
programs, we interviewed 11 out of the 103 green jobs training 
grantees and analyzed data provided by Labor. We interviewed grantees 
in states that had a relatively high number of Labor green jobs grant 
recipients, states where grantees or sub-grantees received GJIF funds, 
and states in different geographic regions.[Footnote 7] During our 
grantee interviews, we collected information about the types of green 
jobs training that were funded by Labor's green jobs training grants 
and the outcomes of grantees' programs, including green job placement. 
We specifically asked grantees about any challenges they may have 
encountered as they developed and implemented their program, including 
whether they experienced challenges placing participants into green 
jobs. We cannot generalize our findings beyond the interviews we 
conducted. 

To assess the reliability of Labor's data on training type and 
outcomes, we (1) reviewed existing documentation related to the data 
sources, including Labor's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 
reports, (2) electronically tested the data to identify obvious 
problems with completeness or accuracy, and (3) interviewed 
knowledgeable agency officials about the data. We determined that the 
data were sufficiently reliable for limited purposes. Specifically, we 
determined that training type data were sufficiently reliable for 
purposes of reporting out on the types of training most frequently 
provided by grantees. However, based upon the OIG's findings, we 
determined that the outcome data were not sufficiently reliable to 
determine the success of the programs and that data on the extent to 
which grantees entered training-related employment were not reliable 
enough to report. 

To describe Labor's technical assistance and monitoring efforts, we 
reviewed technical assistance guides and Labor's Core Monitoring 
guide, interviewed Labor officials, and discussed Labor's technical 
assistance with selected grantees. We also obtained and reviewed 
copies of Labor's monitoring reports for green jobs training grantees. 
In conducting this review, we also reviewed relevant federal laws, 
regulations, guidance and pertinent Labor reports and procedures. A 
more detailed explanation of our scope and methodology can be found in 
appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2012 to June 2013 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. 

Background: 

The Workforce Investment System and Green Jobs Act of 2007: 

The Department of Labor oversees a number of employment and training 
programs administered by state and local workforce boards and one-stop 
career centers established under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 
(WIA). The green jobs training programs Labor has overseen were 
created under the Green Jobs Act of 2007, which amended WIA. The Green 
Jobs Act of 2007 was passed as part of the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (EISA),[Footnote 8] which was intended to move 
the United States toward greater energy independence and security and 
to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, among other 
objectives. This act directed the Secretary of Labor to work in 
consultation with the Secretary of Energy to create a new worker 
training program to prepare workers for careers in the energy 
efficiency and renewable energy industries. However, funds for these 
programs were not appropriated until the passage of the Recovery Act 
in 2009, according to Labor officials. 

Green Jobs and the Recovery Act: 

The Recovery Act appropriated $500 million in funding for competitive 
green jobs grant programs at Labor. The current administration 
presented the green jobs training grant program as part of a broad 
national strategy both to create new jobs and to reform how Americans 
create and consume energy. Specifically, the administration 
articulated a vision for federal investments in renewable energy to 
involve coordination across a number of federal agencies to create 
new, well-paying jobs for Americans and to make such jobs available to 
all workers. 

The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) was responsible for 
overseeing the implementation of the green jobs training programs that 
were authorized in the Green Jobs Act of 2007 and funded through the 
Recovery Act. In June 2009, ETA announced a series of five Recovery 
Act grant competitions related to green jobs, three of which were 
primarily focused on training. All of these programs are scheduled to 
end before the end of July 2013. Table 1 describes these five programs 
and identifies the types of organizations eligible to receive each 
grant. 

Table 1: Green Jobs Grant Programs Funded by the Recovery Act: 

Program: Energy Training Partnership (ETP) Grants; 
Description: Provided funds so grantees could develop partnerships and 
provide training and supportive services, such as registered 
apprenticeships, that would lead to employment for individuals in need 
of updated training and unemployed workers, among others; 
Eligible grantees: Private nonprofit organizations that are either 
national labor-management organizations with local networks or 
nonprofit partnerships-
-either statewide or local; 
Training focused: Yes. 

Program: Pathways Out of Poverty (POP) Grants; 
Description: Provided funds to deliver training and placement services 
to individuals seeking pathways out of poverty, including unemployed 
individuals, high school dropouts, individuals with a criminal record, 
and disadvantaged individuals living in areas of high poverty by 
providing employment within the energy efficiency and renewable energy 
sectors; 
Eligible grantees: Private nonprofit organizations that deliver 
services through networks of local affiliates, for example, or whose 
local affiliates have the ability to provide services in four or more 
states or public or private local organizations such as community 
colleges or faith- based organizations; 
Training focused: Yes. 

Program: State Energy Sector Partnership and Training (SESP) Grants; 
Description: Provided funds for training, job placement, and related 
activities that reflect a comprehensive energy sector strategy aligned 
with the governor's overall workforce vision; 
Eligible grantees: State workforce investment boards, in partnership 
with local officials, employer and industry leaders, and labor 
organizations; 
Training focused: Yes. 

Program: State Labor Market Information Improvement (SLMII) Grants; 
Description: Provided funds to collect, analyze, and disseminate labor 
market information and to enhance the labor exchange infrastructure 
for careers within the energy efficiency and renewable energy sectors; 
Eligible grantees: State workforce agencies or consortia of the state 
workforce agencies of multiple states; 
Training focused: No. 

Program: Green Capacity Building grants (GCBG); 
Description: Provided funds to build the capacity of existing Labor 
grantees to prepare targeted populations for employment in green 
industries and to support organizations so that they could bolster the 
capacity of their training programs through the purchase of equipment, 
staff professional development, curriculum development and/or 
adaptation, partnership development, and where necessary, the hiring 
of additional staff; 
Eligible grantees: Grantees that had already received a grant from 
Labor under specified grant programs, such as YouthBuild or Women in 
Apprenticeship and Non-Traditional Occupations; 
Training focused: No. 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor's Solicitations for Grant Applications. 

[End of table] 

Between September 2010 and October 2012, Labor's OIG issued a series 
of three reports related to the department's Recovery Act green jobs 
programs, including training programs.[Footnote 9] The most recent 
report raised questions about the low job placement and retention of 
trained program participants, the short amount of time for which many 
participants received training, and limitations of available 
employment and retention data, among other things. 

Labor's Broad Framework for Green Jobs: 

Labor has used a broad framework to define green jobs, incorporating 
various elements that have emerged over time as the understanding of 
what constitutes a green job has evolved. As part of the Green Jobs 
Act of 2007, WIA was amended to identify seven energy efficiency and 
renewable energy industries targeted for green jobs training funds. 
[Footnote 10] In addition, beginning in 2009, Labor issued information 
on 12 emerging green sectors as part of a broader effort to describe 
how the green economy was redefining traditional jobs and the skills 
required to carry out those jobs.[Footnote 11] Most recently, in 2010, 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released a two-part definition of 
green jobs that was used to count the number of jobs that could be 
considered green either because what the work produced or how the work 
was performed benefited the environment.[Footnote 12] Figure 1 shows 
the various elements Labor has used over time to define green jobs. 

Figure 1: Key Elements of Labor's Green Framework for Defining Green 
Jobs: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Labor’s framework for defining “Green Jobs: 
Core factor: Job has some “environmental benefit;” 

Source: Green Jobs Act of 2007; 
Framework details: Energy efficiency and renewable energy industries:
* Biofuels; 
* Renewable electric power; 
* Energy efficient construction/retrofit[A]; 
* Energy efficient and advanced vehicles[B]; 
* Deconstruction and materials use; 
* Energy efficiency assessment; 
* Manufacturing sustainable products[C]. 

Source: BLS (two part definition); 
Framework details: 
* Green designation depends upon the goods produced or services 
provided; 
Output approach: Jobs in businesses that produce goods or services 
that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources; 
* Green designation depends on whether establishments use 
environmentally friendly production processes; 
Process approach: BLS measures green jobs by producing data on workers 
who spend more than half their time involved in green technologies and 
practices. 

Source: O*NET categorizations; 
Framework details: 
Twelve sectors given green designation: 
* Governmental/Regulatory; 
* Research, design, and consulting; 
* Renewable energy generation; 
* Energy trading; 
* Energy efficiency; 
* Energy and carbon capture; 
* Environment protection; 
* Recycling/Waste reduction; 
* Agriculture and forestry; 
* Green construction; 
* Manufacturing; 
* Transportation; 
Categorizes occupations based on the extent to which the greening of 
the economy will increase the demand for workers, the extent to which 
it will require workers to learn new skills or perform new tasks, and 
green new and emerging occupations. 

Source: Others (also cited by Labor): 
* State workforce agency definitions; 
* Definitions of various non-governmental agencies; 
* Grantee proposed definition of green jobs supported by evidence. 

Source: Green Jobs Act of 2007 and GAO review of Labor documents. 

[A] Energy efficient building, construction, and retrofit. 

[B] Energy efficient and advanced drive train vehicle. 

[C] Manufacturers that produce sustainable products using 
environmentally sustainable processes and materials. 

[End of figure] 

During the implementation of its Recovery Act green jobs training 
programs and the newer Green Jobs Innovation Fund (GJIF) pilot and 
demonstration project, which was initiated in 2011 to support job 
training opportunities for workers in green industry sectors and 
occupations, Labor has allowed program applicants to use combinations 
of the various elements to propose the type of training they would 
provide. For example, Labor permitted grantees of the three Recovery 
Act-funded programs to develop their green jobs training programs by 
focusing on training in the seven industries specified by the Green 
Jobs Act of 2007, or to propose strategies for training in sectors or 
occupations identified as green within the Occupational Information 
Network (O*NET). In addition to these two elements, Labor allowed 
applicants of the more recent GJIF program to use the BLS definition. 
Furthermore, Labor allowed GJIF applicants to propose their own 
definition of green jobs if they were able to support their definition 
with evidence. 

Labor Has Focused Its Green Jobs Efforts Largely on Job Training: 

Most Funding for Green Jobs Efforts Has Been Directed toward Training 
Workers: 

According to funding information provided by Labor and our survey of 
Labor's directly-funded green jobs efforts, most funding for green 
jobs efforts at Labor has been directed toward programs designed to 
train individuals for green jobs, with less funding supporting efforts 
with other objectives, such as data collection or information 
materials.[Footnote 13] Indeed, approximately $501 million (84 
percent) of the $595 million identified by offices at Labor as having 
been appropriated or allocated specifically for green jobs activities 
since 2009 went toward efforts with training and support services as 
their primary objective.[Footnote 14] In total, approximately $73 
million, or 12 percent of the total amount of funding for green jobs 
activities, was reported appropriated or allocated for data collection 
and reporting efforts. 

Most of the funding for green jobs efforts was provided through the 
Recovery Act, which funded both training and non-training-focused 
projects at Labor in part to increase energy efficiency and the use of 
renewable energy sources nationwide. In addition to Recovery Act 
funding for green jobs efforts, funding information provided by Labor 
and through our survey of directly-funded green jobs efforts indicate 
that Labor has allocated at least an additional $89 million since 2009 
to support seven other green jobs efforts that have been implemented 
by five of Labor's offices (see figure 2). For a brief description of 
each of Labor's green jobs efforts for which funds were appropriated 
or allocated, see appendix II. 

Figure 2: Funding for Green Jobs Efforts at Labor since 2009, by 
Office and Focus Area: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Training and supportive services ($500.8 million): 
State Energy Sector Partnership and Training Grants (SESP)[H]: $187.9 
million; 
Energy Training Partnership Grants (ETP)[H]: $99.8 million; 
Pathways Out of Poverty Grants (POP)[H]: $147.8 million; 
Green Jobs Innovation Fund (GJIF)[I,ETA]: $38.0 million; 
Veterans’ Workforce Investment Program[A][I,VETS]: $26.9 million; 
Susan Harwood Training Grant Program [OSHA][I,ETA]: $400,000. 

Data collection and reporting ($72.8 million): 
State Labor Market Information Improvement Grants (SLMII)[H,OSHA]: 
$48.8 million; 
Green Goods and Services program[B][I,BLS]: $12.0 million; 
Occupational Employment and Wages in Green Goods and Services 
program[B][I,BLS]: $6.0 million; 
Green Technologies and Practices survey[B][I,BLS]: 6.0 million. 

Technical assistance ($7.3 million): 
Technical assistance[C][H]: $4.8 million; 
Occupational Information Network (O*NET)[H]: $2.5 million. 

Other efforts: Capacity building; administrative expenses; information 
materials, or partnerships: ($13.9 million): 
Green Capacity Building Grants (GCBG)[H]: $5.8 million; 
Administrative expenses[D][H]: $5.0 million; 
Recovery Act contract awards for Job Corps[E][H]: $3.1 million; 
Nanomaterials Safe Practice and Handling Guidelines[F] [OSHA]: $30,000; 
Trilateral Roundtable on the Green Economy[G] [ILAB]: $13,000. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data for directly-funded efforts, 
funding data provided by labor, and additional funding identified by 
GAO. 

[A] This figure represents cumulative funding for the program for 
fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011. The amount appropriated or 
allocated for the program was $7,641,000, $9,641,000, and $9,622,000, 
respectively. 

[B] Since its inception in fiscal year (FY) 2010, through FY 2012, BLS 
has been appropriated approximately $24 million for the Green Jobs 
initiative. Of this amount, BLS allocated about $4 million annually 
for the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages portion of the Green 
Goods and Services (GGS) survey; about $2 million annually for the 
Occupational Employment Statistics portion and; about $2 million 
annually for the Green Technologies and Practices (GTP) survey. The 
Employment Projections program was also funded from the same 
appropriation specifically for green jobs activities. 

[C] This figure represents approximately $3.4 million in Recovery Act 
funding for technical assistance provided through the National 
Governors Association and its partners for green jobs grantees and 
approximately $1.5 million in non-Recovery Act funding for technical 
assistance for GJIF grantees. Funding for technical assistance for 
Health Care Sector and Other High Growth and Emerging Industries 
Grantees is excluded from this funding figure. 

[D] Administrative expenses include funding for three green jobs 
evaluations: A Labor Market Information evaluation ($499,980), a Green 
Jobs and Health Care Implementation Report ($917,248), and a 5-year 
impact evaluation ($7,992,852). 

[E] Recovery Act contract awards for Job Corps primarily supported 
capacity building activities, though some funding was used for 
training activities. 

[F] Recovery Act funds were used to fund this effort. 

[G] Trilateral Roundtable: The Employment Dimension of the Transition 
to a Green Economy (February 3-4, 2011); this figure represents an 
expenditure instead of an appropriated or allocated amount. 

[H] Funded by Recovery Act (10 efforts, $505.5 million). 

[I] Not funded by Recovery Act (7 efforts, $89.3 million). 

ETA: Employment and Training Administration. 
OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 
VETS: Veterans’ Employment and Training Service. 
BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 
ILAB: Bureau of International Labor Affairs. 

[End of figure] 

The Recovery Act directed federal agencies to spend the funds it made 
available quickly and prudently, and Labor implemented a number of 
relatively brief but high-investment green jobs efforts 
simultaneously. As a result, in some cases, Recovery Act training 
programs were initiated prior to a full assessment of the demand for 
green jobs.[Footnote 15] Specifically, Recovery Act-funded green jobs 
training grantees designed and began to implement their green jobs 
training programs at the same time states were developing green job 
definitions and beginning to collect workforce and labor market 
information on the prevalence and likely growth of green jobs through 
the State Labor Market Information Improvement grants, which were also 
funded with Recovery Act funds. Furthermore, BLS launched its Green 
Jobs initiative--which included various surveys designed to help 
define and measure the prevalence of green jobs--after many green jobs 
training programs had begun.[Footnote 16] ETA officials noted that 
BLS's development of the definition of green jobs was a deliberative 
and extensive process that required consulting stakeholders and the 
public. They also said that BLS's timeline for defining green jobs 
differed from ETA's timeline for awarding and executing grants, which 
was driven by Recovery Act mandates. 

Labor has made subsequent investments that build upon lessons learned 
through the Recovery Act grant programs. For example, ETA initiated 
the $38 million GJIF program in 2011 to support job training 
opportunities for workers in green industry sectors and occupations. 
In developing the GJIF grant program, ETA considered lessons learned 
through the Recovery Act grant programs.[Footnote 17] For example, 
various stakeholders including employers, the public workforce system, 
federal agencies, and foundations identified Registered 
Apprenticeship--training that combines job related technical 
instruction with structured on-the-job learning experiences for 
skilled trades and allows participants to earn wages--as a valuable 
workforce strategy. ETA acknowledged that upgrading basic skills, 
including literacy and math, is critical to ensure job placement and 
suggested that training participants exclusively in green skills is 
not always sufficient. Consequently, ETA required GJIF grantees to 
implement green jobs training programs that would either forge 
linkages between Registered Apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship 
programs or deliver integrated basic skills and occupational training 
through community-based organizations. Figure 3 shows a timeline 
illustrating the rollout of selected green jobs grants at Labor and 
the time periods during which these grants were active,[Footnote 18] 
as well as the timing of BLS's efforts to collect data on green jobs. 
With the exception of the GJIF grants, all of these efforts will have 
been completed by July 2013. 

Figure 3: Timeline of Selected Green Jobs Efforts at Labor: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

December 2007: 
Green Jobs Act of 2007 signed into law as Title X of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

February 2009: 
Recovery Act signed into law. 

Green Job grants: 

Green Jobs data collection: 

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Green Jobs Initiative: 
October 2009: Funds appropriated to BLS for Green Jobs Initiative; 
September 2010: Final Green Jobs definition released; 
February 2012: 2010 GGS survey results; 
May 2012: August 2011 GTP survey results; 
September 2012: November 2011 GGS-OCC data released. 
February 2013: 2011 GGS survey results; 
September 2013: BLS scheduled to eliminate Green Jobs Initiative by 
September 2013 due to budgets cuts. 

State Labor Market Information Improvement Grants: 
May 2009: Application; 
July 2009: Review; 
November 2009-November 2011: Period of performance; 
August 2010: Findings disseminated throughout; 
April 2011: Extension. 

Capacity building: 

Green Capacity Building Grants: 
May 2009: Application; 
July 2009: Review; 
October 2009-November 2011: Period of performance; 
November 2010: Extension. 

Green Jobs Training: 

Energy Training Partnership Grants: 
May 2009: Application; 
August 2009: Review; 
January 2012-December 2012: Period of performance; 
January 2012: Extension. 

Pathways Out of Poverty Grants: 
May 2009: Application; 
August 2009: Review; 
January 2012-December 2012: Period of performance; 
January 2012: Extension. 

State Energy Sector Partnership and Training Grants: 
May 2009: Application; 
August 2009: Review; 
January 2012-December 2012: Period of performance; 
January 2012-June 2013: Extension. 

Green Jobs Innovation Fund Grants: 
January 2011: Application; 
March 201: Review; 
June 2011-May 2014: Period of performance. 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor documents. 

[End of figure] 

Distribution and Characteristics of Green Jobs Training Grantees: 

Grantees from all but six states received at least one of the 103 
green jobs training grants that were awarded by ETA,[Footnote 
19],[Footnote 20] but grantees were somewhat concentrated within 
certain regions of the country. Specifically, most states with three 
or more grantees were located in the Northeast, West, or Midwest 
regions of the country.[Footnote 21] Four states and the District of 
Columbia received five or more green jobs training grants: California, 
Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania. Figure 4 shows the number of 
green jobs training grants awarded by state. 

Figure 4: Green Jobs Training Grantees, by State: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

No grantees: 
Delaware; 
Louisiana; 
Mississippi; 
New Hampshire; 
North Dakota; 
South Carolina. 

1 to 2 grantees: 
Alabama; 
Alaska; 
Arizona; 
Arkansas; 
Georgia; 
Hawaii; 
Idaho; 
Illinois; 
Indiana; 
Kansas; 
Kentucky; 
Maine; 
Montana; 
Nebraska; 
Nevada; 
New Jersey; 
New Mexico; 
North Carolina; 
Ohio; 
Oklahoma; 
Rhode Island; 
South Dakota; 
Tennessee; 
Texas; 
Utah; 
Vermont; 
Virginia; 
West Virginia; 
Wisconsin; 
Wyoming. 

3 to 4 grantees: 
Colorado; 
Connecticut; 
Florida; 
Iowa; 
Maryland; 
Massachusetts; 
Minnesota; 
Missouri; 
Oregon; 
Washington; 

5 or more grantees: 
California; 
District of Columbia; 
Michigan; 
New York; 
Pennsylvania. 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor data. 

[End of figure] 

In terms of organizational type, most green jobs training grants were 
awarded to nonprofit organizations and state workforce agencies (see 
figure 5). Specifically, 44 percent of green jobs training grants were 
awarded to nonprofit organizations and 34 percent were awarded to 
state governmental agencies or departments. In addition, 10 percent of 
grantees were organized labor or labor management organizations. ETA 
officials from all six of its regional offices said that in terms of 
organizational type, green jobs training grantees did not differ 
substantially from the types of grantees ETA typically oversees. ETA 
officials said building partnerships had been an important focus of 
the green jobs grants, and indeed ETA's grant solicitations required, 
or in some cases encouraged, grant recipients, regardless of 
organizational type, to develop partnerships with various 
stakeholders, such as representatives of the workforce system, 
industry groups, employers, unions, the education and training 
community, nonprofits, or community-based organizations. Staff from 
ETA's regional offices said that some grantees developed new and 
successful partnerships as a result of the grants, including 
partnerships with labor unions. 

Figure 5: Green Jobs Training Grantees, by Organizational Type: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Nonprofit: 44% (45 grants); 
State government agency or department: 34% (35 grants); 
Local government agency: 3% (3 grants); 
Labor or labor management organization: 10% (10 grants); 
Educational or technical training institution: 8% (8 grants); 
Other: 2% (2 grants). 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor data. 

[End of figure] 

More than half of ETA's green jobs training grantees implemented their 
grants through sub-grantees, or a network of local affiliates, rather 
than providing training services directly to participants. Grantees 
that contract with sub-grantees or local affiliates to provide 
services are responsible for monitoring and overseeing how all grant 
funds are used, effectively delegating day-to-day oversight 
responsibility from Labor to the primary grantee.[Footnote 22] 

Labor's Efforts to: 

Infuse Green Jobs into Existing Programs: 

In addition to Labor's direct investments in green jobs, several 
offices at Labor have infused green elements into their ongoing 
activities even though funds were not specifically appropriated or 
allocated for these green jobs efforts. In total, of the 14 Labor 
offices we surveyed, 6 identified and implemented 48 such efforts (for 
a list of the efforts, see appendix III). Some of these offices added 
a "layer of green" to existing training programs or other activities. 
For example, according to material provided by Labor, most YouthBuild 
programs have incorporated green building into their construction 
training. Other efforts focused on providing information materials, 
forming partnerships, or conducting publicity and outreach, among 
other things. For example, the Women's Bureau[Footnote 23] created a 
guide on sustainable careers for women and Labor's Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration contributed to an Environmental Protection 
Agency publication on best practices for improving indoor air quality 
during home energy upgrades. Further, in 2010 the Center for Faith-
Based and Neighborhood Partnerships hosted a roundtable discussion 
about green jobs between the Secretary of Labor and leaders from 
national foundations and discussed how to create employment 
opportunities for low-income populations in the green jobs industry. 

Several of Labor's Offices Coordinate on Implementing Green Jobs 
Efforts within Labor or with Other Federal Agencies: 

Although funding for green jobs efforts at Labor has shifted and green 
jobs efforts funded through the Recovery Act are winding down, a few 
of Labor's ongoing programs or efforts continue to emphasize green 
jobs or skills, and Labor continues to incorporate green elements into 
existing programs by coordinating internally on an as-needed basis. 
After the passage of the Recovery Act, a number of Labor's offices 
worked together to implement the requirements of the act, and Labor 
officials said that they collaborated on green jobs efforts on a 
fairly regular basis and that more formal green jobs meetings across 
the department were common. For those green jobs efforts where green 
elements have been infused into ongoing activities even though funds 
were not specifically appropriated or allocated for green jobs 
efforts, offices at Labor indicated through our survey that they 
continue to coordinate on such efforts within Labor and across other 
federal agencies, albeit in a less formal manner. For example, 
according to our survey of these indirectly-funded green jobs efforts, 
for 37 of 46 of the efforts listed in appendix III, offices said that 
they coordinated with others at Labor, and for 30 of 46 of the 
efforts, they reported coordinating with other federal agencies. 
[Footnote 24] In addition, it is likely that coordination on green 
jobs efforts will continue to occur on an ad-hoc basis, especially as 
funding and priorities within the department shift. For example, Labor 
recently reported that due to federal budget cuts, BLS has 
discontinued its reporting on employment in green jobs. 

According to a Labor official, after the Recovery Act was passed, 
Labor collaborated with other departments, such as the Department of 
Energy (Energy) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) to foster job growth for a new green economy. For example, 
Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration worked with 
Energy on retrofitting and safety activities, and Labor also partnered 
with HUD to provide green jobs training and possible employment 
opportunities to public housing residents. In addition, Labor entered 
into various Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) after the Recovery Act 
was passed to collaborate on green jobs-related issues with other 
federal agencies. For example, the Secretaries of Energy, Labor, and 
the Department of Education announced a collaboration to connect jobs 
to training programs and career pathways and to make cross-agency 
communication a priority. While these examples highlight coordination 
on green jobs efforts after the passage of the Recovery Act, little is 
known about the effectiveness of these efforts. 

Selected Grantees Broadly Defined Green Jobs and Generally Added Green 
Elements to Existing Training Programs: 

To identify the potential demand for green jobs in their communities, 
all (11 of 11)[Footnote 25] grantees we interviewed had broadly 
interpreted Labor's green jobs definitional framework to include as 
green any job that could be linked, directly or indirectly, to a 
beneficial environmental outcome. While Labor created its framework to 
provide local flexibility, the wide variation in the types of green 
jobs obtained by program participants illustrates just how broadly 
Labor's definition can be interpreted and raises questions about what 
constitutes a green job--especially in cases where the job essentially 
takes the form of a more traditional job (see table 2). In general, 
grantees we interviewed considered jobs green if they could link the 
job to (1) a green industry, (2) the production or installation of 
goods that benefit the environment, (3) the performance of services 
that potentially lead to environmental benefits, or (4) 
environmentally beneficial work processes. For example, in some cases, 
grantees we interviewed considered jobs green because they were linked 
to the renewable energy industry, such as solar panel installation or 
sales. Grantees considered other jobs green because the goods being 
produced benefited the environment, such as the pouring of concrete 
for a wind turbine or the installation of energy efficient appliances. 
In some cases the green job was service-based, such as an energy 
auditor or energy surveyor. Finally, other grantees considered jobs 
green because of the environmentally beneficial processes being used, 
such as applying paint in an efficient manner or using advanced 
manufacturing techniques that reduce waste. Even for jobs where parts 
of the work have a link to environmentally beneficial outcomes, 
workers may only use green skills or practices for a portion of the 
time they work. For instance, technicians trained to install and 
repair high-efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 
(HVAC) systems may in the course of their work also install less 
energy efficient equipment.[Footnote 26] 

Table 2: Examples of Green Job Placement Based on Interviews with 
Selected Labor Green Jobs Grantees: 

Training focus: Renewable energy; 
Green job placement examples: 
* solar panel installer; 
* solar panel sales representative. 

Training focus: Green construction and retrofitting; 
Green job placement examples: 
* construction laborer building an energy efficient home; 
* laborer inspecting and weatherizing homes; 
* operator driving heavy machinery on a public rail project; 
* concrete pourer on a wind-turbine project site; 
* plumber installing low-flow toilets and water saving fixtures; 
* hardwood floor layer installing sustainable flooring materials; 
* worker trained to apply paint in a manner that reduces waste; 
* and toxic emissions. 

Training focus: Electrical work; 
Green job placement examples: 
* electrician installing energy-efficient lighting controls; 
* maintenance advisor on energy-saving appliances and lighting 
alternatives for property managers. 

Training focus: Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) 
Systems; 
Green job placement examples: 
* HVAC technician installing high-efficiency furnaces and air 
conditioning units; 
* worker who conducts energy surveys to educate building owners on 
cost-effective energy efficiency alternatives; 
* maintenance technician overseeing compliance on EPA emission 
regulations. 

Training focus: General and hazardous waste management; 
Green job placement examples: 
* laborer on an environmental clean-up project; 
* laborer removing hazardous waste from a factory site. 

Training focus: Manufacturing; 
Green job placement examples: 
* factory line-worker trained to identify opportunities to reduce 
waste; 
* machinist using computerized technology that reduces waste. 

Training focus: Other; 
Green job placement examples: 
* emergency medical technician trained to perform rescues on wind 
turbine towers. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from selected Labor green jobs 
training grantees. 

[End of table] 

All grantees we interviewed said they had worked closely with local 
employers to align their training program with the green skills needs 
of local employers. All agreed developing effective relationships with 
employers was crucial to aligning any training program with available 
jobs.[Footnote 27] Labor's three Recovery Act green jobs training 
programs, as well as the GJIF program, all required applicants to 
demonstrate how they would partner with local employers to develop and 
implement their training programs. Most (9) grantees told us they had 
assembled advisory boards consisting of representatives from local 
businesses and industry associations to help inform them about 
available green jobs and the skills that would most likely be in 
demand by local employers. Further, all grantees said they engaged in 
ongoing communication with employers to stay abreast of changes in the 
local economy and employer needs, and most (10) made changes to their 
program curricula or tailored their training in response to employer 
input. 

Labor's data show that green jobs training grantees primarily offered 
training in the construction and manufacturing industries. 
Specifically, nearly half of all participants of the Recovery Act-
funded green jobs training programs received training focused on 
construction, and approximately 15 percent received training in 
manufacturing. Over 5 percent of participants in those programs 
received training in other industries that included utilities, 
transportation, and warehousing. Grantees in Labor's newer GJIF 
program focused even more heavily on construction--approximately 94 
percent of participants were trained in construction and around 3 
percent in manufacturing. 

Most grantees (9) we spoke to had infused green elements into existing 
training curricula for more traditional skills. However, the extent to 
which the training focused on green versus traditional skills varied 
across programs and often depended upon the skill level of targeted 
participants. Most (7) of the programs we visited generally targeted 
relatively low-skilled individuals with limited work experience and 
were designed to teach participants the foundational skills they would 
need to pursue a career in a skilled trade in which green skills and 
materials can be used. For example, those programs typically used 
their green job grant funds to incorporate green skills into existing 
construction, carpentry, heating/air-conditioning, plumbing, or 
electricity programs. The programs generally involved a mixture of 
classroom and hands-on training and taught traditional skills, such as 
how to read blueprints, use tools, install and service appliances, and 
frame buildings. In teaching these skills, however, instructors also 
showed students the way the processes or products used in performing 
these tasks could lead to environmentally beneficial outcomes. For 
example, participants were taught various ways to weatherize a 
building to conserve energy, to efficiently operate heavy machines to 
save fuel, or to install solar panels as part of a green construction 
project. 

In contrast, two programs we visited focused more exclusively on short-
term green skills training to supplement the existing traditional 
skills of relatively higher-skilled unemployed workers. For example, 
one green awareness program taught participants to identify ways to 
perform their work, such as manufacturing, in a more environmentally 
beneficial manner, often by identifying and reducing waste. Another 
program added a component to their comprehensive electrical training 
program to train unemployed registered electricians how to install and 
maintain advanced energy efficient lighting systems. The grantees 
associated with both of these programs, as well as other grantees, 
noted that employer demand for workers with green skills may sometimes 
be most effectively met through short-term training of higher-skilled 
unemployed workers or incumbent workers. 

Outcomes of Green Jobs Training Remain Uncertain, with Grantees Citing 
Implementation Challenges: 

Outcomes of Green Jobs Training Programs Remain Largely Unknown Due to 
Data Lags: 

The overall impact of Labor's green jobs training programs remains 
largely uncertain partly because some individuals are still 
participating in training and are not expected to have outcomes yet, 
and because final outcome data are submitted to Labor approximately 3 
months after the grant period ends.[Footnote 28] The most recent 
performance outcome data for the three Recovery Act-funded and GJIF 
green jobs grants are as of December 31, 2012, at which time 
approximately 60 percent of the Recovery Act-funded programs had ended 
and grantees had submitted final performance outcome data. According 
to Labor officials, complete outcome data for the remaining Recovery 
Act-funded green jobs grantees will likely not be available until 
October 2013 because many grants were extended to June 2013. They also 
said that final performance outcome data for the GJIF grant--which is 
scheduled to end in June 2014--will likely not be available until 
October 2014. Our analysis of data reported by Recovery Act-funded 
green jobs grantees with final outcome data shows that these grantees 
collectively reported enrolling and training more participants than 
they had proposed when setting their outcome targets.[Footnote 29] 
However, their placement of program participants into employment 
lagged in comparison--these grantees reported placing 55 percent of 
the projected number of participants into jobs. When final data become 
available for the remaining 40 percent of grantees, the final figure 
comparing reported employment outcomes to proposed targets may change. 
[Footnote 30] Moreover, it remains to be seen how GJIF grantees' 
employment outcomes will compare to their projected targets, and 
whether the employment outcomes of this program will benefit either 
from economic changes or lessons learned since the Recovery Act 
programs began. 

Developing a complete and accurate assessment of Labor's green jobs 
training programs is further challenged by the potential unreliability 
of certain outcome data--particularly for placement into training-
related employment. In its October 2012 report, Labor's OIG questioned 
the reliability of the Recovery Act green jobs training programs' 
employment and retention outcome data because a significant proportion 
of sampled data for employment and retention outcomes were not 
adequately supported by grantee documentation.[Footnote 31] We 
reviewed the OIG's data review process and found it appropriate for 
assessing reliability and therefore also consider the data unreliable 
for evaluating program performance.[Footnote 32] While outcome data 
for the ongoing GJIF program are still being reported and the OIG did 
not assess the reliability of this program's data, Labor's method for 
collecting these data remains largely unchanged from that used for the 
Recovery Act-funded green jobs training programs. Consequently, these 
outcome data--particularly for placement into training-related 
employment--could also be questionable. 

Labor officials noted that they have been collecting additional 
information on employment outcomes and wages using state unemployment 
insurance (UI) wage record data on program participants, and will 
continue to do so into early 2015 for the GJIF program.[Footnote 33] 
Results of their most recent analyses of UI data showed that, of the 
participants who had exited at least one of the three Recovery Act-
funded green jobs training programs between April 1, 2011, and March 
31, 2012, 52 percent had obtained employment.[Footnote 34] Similar 
analyses provided by Labor showed that, of participants who had exited 
between October 1, 2010, and September 30, 2011, 83 percent of those 
who had become employed had retained their employment for at least 6 
months and had average earnings of around $25,000 for the 6 month 
period. Results of Labor's analysis of UI wage data for participants 
of the GJIF program shows that 40 percent of participants who had 
exited between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2012, had entered 
employment.[Footnote 35] However, the UI data do not capture whether 
jobs obtained were training-related for either the Recovery Act-funded 
or GJIF programs, so, absent additional relevant information, the 
extent to which grantees placed participants into training-related 
employment may never be reliably known. 

According to Labor officials, once complete, these additional UI wage 
data may provide more definitive information on the extent to which 
program participants entered employment and will be used by the 
department to develop a broader picture of the grant programs' level 
of success in achieving employment outcomes. Specifically, Labor 
officials said that while there is not a formal process to study the 
UI data, program staff routinely examine these data to identify 
lessons learned and best practices that could be applied to future 
grant programs. Labor officials said the data could be used to compare 
the green jobs training programs against other training programs 
across the agency, such as those under WIA, if resources permit. While 
Labor officials consider the UI data to be more definitive than the 
grantee-reported job placement data to measure overall program 
outcomes once the grant period ends, they stressed the importance of 
having real-time data to monitor grantee performance during 
implementation. 

While the UI wage record data provide an alternative source of 
information on job placement outcomes, due to a 9-month lag time, 
these data are of limited usefulness regarding program management. 
Specifically, because of the time lag, grantees could not use these 
data to monitor their progress toward meeting program goals in real-
time. Further, Labor could not use the data to hold grantees 
accountable for meeting grant goals, as all grant periods will have 
ended before the data are complete. Consequently, ensuring the 
reliability of grantee reported outcome data remains vitally 
important, particularly for grant programs whose primary objective is 
to prepare workers for attaining employment in a targeted emerging 
industry. 

Grantees Highlighted Green Jobs Training Benefits and Challenges: 

The grantees we interviewed were generally positive about Labor's 
green jobs training programs, with most speaking optimistically about 
the potential value of the green skills obtained by the program 
participants. Most grantees we met with said that they believe there 
to be a continued national movement towards lowering energy usage--
whether due to economic, policy, or cultural changes[Footnote 36]--and 
all projected that the demand for workers with green skills 
credentials will continue to rise. All (11 of 11) were of the opinion 
that possessing green skills in addition to more traditional skills 
provides workers with an advantage as they seek a new job or move 
along a career pathway, and most (10) cited the need for training 
programs that provide nationally or industry-recognized green 
credentials. Two noted that having multiple credentials was 
particularly valuable. Lastly, some (5) grantees mentioned that the 
benefits of the green jobs training, like most job training, may not 
become apparent immediately, but may often be realized later during 
the worker's career, especially as demand for green skills grows. 

However, all grantees noted there have been challenges associated with 
developing and implementing Labor's green jobs training programs. For 
example, most (8) of the grantees we interviewed said that the lack of 
credible green jobs labor market information had limited their ability 
to identify or predict the level of available green jobs or the demand 
for green skills in their local area. Although state workforce 
agencies received funding to conduct green jobs labor market 
information studies under the State Labor Market Information 
Improvement grants, most resulting data were issued after many 
Recovery Act training programs had already begun. In addition, the BLS 
surveys were released from March 2012 through March 2013, after GJIF 
grantees had submitted their applications outlining their training 
programs to Labor. Having access to the final results of the state 
labor market information studies could have provided Recovery Act 
grantees with additional insights into their state's economic activity 
in the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries, as well as 
jobs within those industries when they were developing their training 
programs. Similarly, BLS survey results could have provided GJIF 
grantees with a national snapshot of establishments that produce green 
goods and services and the jobs of workers involved in green 
activities, among other information, and may have provided grantees 
with additional context for the development and implementation of 
their green jobs training programs.[Footnote 37] Labor officials said 
the rapidly evolving nature of the green industries has resulted in 
multiple changes to employer green job demand information over the 
course of the grant periods, further complicating their attempts to 
provide labor market information for this sector. 

In addition, most (9) grantees we met with said Labor's green jobs 
training grants did not afford them enough time to both develop local 
partnerships and recruit, train, and place program participants. All 
grantees said developing partnerships can be especially time-consuming 
if such partnerships had not existed prior to the grant award. 
[Footnote 38] Most (9) noted that given how important local 
partnerships are to developing successful training programs, training 
programs that require such partnerships should have longer grant 
periods than those afforded by the Recovery Act and GJIF programs. 

Furthermore, most (8) grantees mentioned how developing and 
implementing a relatively new type of training, like green skills, can 
require additional time in order to fill knowledge gaps among 
employers. This may be especially true in light of changing state and 
local energy policies. For example, according to the Department of 
Energy, as of March 2013, 29 states have established standards aimed 
at generating a certain percentage of the state's energy using 
renewable sources by a specified year. Furthermore, many 
municipalities throughout the country are requiring that local 
construction projects adhere to environmentally friendly requirements. 
However, most (9) grantees we spoke with said some employers may not 
recognize how changing policies will affect their businesses. In fact, 
they believe this lack of understanding may be limiting demand for 
workers trained in green skills. To address this problem, one of the 
grantees we interviewed had developed a 1-day training program for 
local business managers to educate them about how they could benefit 
from the green skills that participants were obtaining through the 
organization's training program. Most (6) grantees said at times 
during the implementation of their green jobs training program, they 
were, in effect, attempting to simultaneously drive both supply and 
demand for workers with green skills, which took considerable time and 
effort. 

In addition, although all grantees we interviewed had engaged with 
employers who had committed their support for the training curriculum, 
they also said this did not always translate into green jobs for 
program participants. Above all, most (9) pointed to the slow economic 
recovery as the reason their predictions--and those made by employers--
regarding green job growth were not fully realized. For example, one 
grantee explained how the local housing market had not recovered as 
quickly as anticipated, and as a result, demand for workers with green 
skills--such as green construction techniques, weatherization 
practices, and the installation of energy efficient appliances--has 
been sluggish. In addition, most (10) grantees explained that because 
green skills are often intertwined with traditional skills training 
and the skilled labor industries, their programs' participants were 
negatively affected by the overall poor economy. For example, most 
grantees (9) noted how their program participants, despite their 
additional layer of green skills training, found themselves competing 
with a high number of unemployed workers who were also seeking to 
regain employment in more traditional jobs such as carpentry or 
electrical work. Most (9) grantees also noted that renewable energy 
sectors, such as solar power, have not grown in their regions as was 
predicted several years ago. Lastly, most (7) grantees we interviewed 
said it is difficult to accurately measure the value of green skills 
training in terms of green job placement. In general, they said this 
is partly because, unlike jobs in other growing industries, like 
health care, there are few distinctly green jobs. One grantee we met 
with said she believes the term "green job" is misleading, and 
complicates program implementation. This grant official said that 
funding should be directed toward supplementing traditional skills 
training with green skills that can be used on any job rather than on 
preparing workers for specific jobs identified as green. 

Based on our interviews with grantees of Labor's green jobs training 
programs, and the descriptions of their experiences implementing those 
programs, we identified several lessons learned that may warrant 
consideration when implementing similar targeted grant programs for 
other emerging industries (see table 3). 

Table 3: Lessons Learned Associated with Implementing Grant Programs 
for an Emerging Industry: 

Implementing grant programs for an emerging industry may require a 
more nimble approach; 
Lessons learned based on selected grantees' experiences implementing 
Labor's green jobs training programs: 
* Setting realistic outcome goals can be complicated by uncertainty 
regarding the economy and public policies; 
* If available labor market information is limited, significant, 
ongoing employer involvement will likely be required; 
* Local market conditions may quickly change necessitating 
modifications to training and grant agreements; 
* There can be unanticipated challenges to training and placing target 
populations into jobs as the industry continues to evolve. 

Implementing grant programs for an emerging industry may require 
longer grant periods; 
Lessons learned based on selected grantees' experiences implementing 
Labor's green jobs training programs: 
* Building effective relationships with employers and key partners can 
require a large investment of time and effort; 
* Identifying industry-recognized credentials may require significant 
research; 
* If the emerging industry is intertwined with the skilled labor 
trades, preparing low-skilled workers to be job-ready will likely 
require supplemental training and assistance. 

Implementing grant programs for an emerging industry may require a 
raised awareness of the emerging industry; 
Lessons learned based on selected grantees' experiences implementing 
Labor's green jobs training programs: 
* Learning about the new industry and staying current requires 
continuous research; 
* Consensus on the value of specific job credentials may be lacking; 
* Training providers and employers are not always aware about how 
changing policies will affect the demand for new worker skills. 

Implementing grant programs for an emerging industry may require more 
effective measurement of program outcomes; 
Lessons learned based on selected grantees' experiences implementing 
Labor's green jobs training programs: 
* If the industry is defined broadly to allow local flexibility, it 
may limit the comparability of reported outcome data; 
* Accurate counting of outcomes is difficult when the definition of 
the industry continues to evolve; 
* Training for jobs of the future may result in delayed outcomes if 
jobs are slow to materialize. 

Source: GAO analysis of interviews with selected grantees. 

[End of table] 

Labor Has Assisted and Monitored Grantees, but Has Provided Limited 
Guidance on Outcome Documentation Requirements: 

Labor Has Provided Various Forms of Technical Assistance to Support 
Green Jobs Grantees: 

Labor has provided all green jobs grantees with technical assistance 
to help them implement their grant programs and comply with relevant 
federal laws and regulations. For example, Labor officials have hosted 
technical assistance webinars on topics such as financial management 
and how to engage employers. Labor also maintains a website for each 
green jobs training grant program and a green jobs community of 
practice on its online platform, Workforce3One. In addition, Labor has 
published bimonthly digests for Recovery Act grantees since January 
2011 that highlight new technical assistance materials and other grant-
related information. Finally, Labor has compiled and periodically 
updated a technical assistance guide that briefly describes and 
provides hyperlinks for its technical assistance resources, including 
webinar recordings and promising practices. Several grantees we 
interviewed (4 of 11) reported participating in webinars and referring 
to technical assistance materials posted to Workforce3One. 

In addition, ETA has funded three separate studies to assess the 
implementation of selected green jobs programs funded by the Recovery 
Act. Specifically, Labor funded a 2-year implementation evaluation 
that examined the implementation of the three Recovery Act-funded 
green jobs training programs and issued both interim and final 
reports.[Footnote 39], [Footnote 40] Labor also funded an evaluation 
of the State Labor Market Information Improvement grants and issued a 
final report and additional related products in 2013.[Footnote 41] 
Finally, Labor has funded an ongoing impact evaluation scheduled to be 
completed in 2016. This study was designed to test the extent to which 
selected grantees of one of the four green-jobs training programs 
overseen by ETA--Pathways Out of Poverty--improved worker outcomes by 
imparting skills and training valued in the labor market.[Footnote 42] 

To support its technical assistance efforts to grantees, Labor entered 
into a grant agreement with the National Governors Association, which 
together with two partner organizations formed a Technical Assistance 
Partnership (TA Partnership).[Footnote 43] In conjunction with Labor 
officials, the TA Partnership has facilitated monthly conference calls 
for each grant program so grantees can learn from their peers and 
receive program-specific technical assistance. The TA Partnership has 
also compiled and updated reports that highlight promising practices 
grantees have implemented. Finally, the TA Partnership and Labor 
officials have held annual grantee conferences, which have covered 
various topics including strategies to retain and place program 
participants and the importance of nationally recognized credentials. 
Several (4 of 11) grantees we interviewed mentioned participating in 
the monthly conference calls and annual conferences and said that 
generally they had been helpful. 

While Labor provided guidance and technical assistance on how to 
document eligibility for the green jobs training programs, it provided 
little guidance on what documentation grantees were expected to 
maintain regarding program outcomes, particularly with respect to job 
placement. Specifically, while Labor provided guidance on how to 
report required performance data into its Recovery Act Database, this 
guidance does not specify what documentation, if any, grantees were to 
maintain for reported job placements, including those considered 
training-related. Our Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government provides that internal control and all transactions and 
other significant events should be clearly documented and readily 
available for examination.[Footnote 44] However, in its last green 
jobs report, the OIG found that nearly a quarter of reported outcomes 
were not supported by adequate documentation. One regional official 
noted that sub-grantees may not have known what documentation was 
required and staff in another office said that in some cases primary 
grantees may not have done enough to ensure that the sub-grantees they 
were responsible for overseeing understood documentation requirements. 

While Labor officials have not issued additional guidance to GJIF 
grantees regarding how to document job placement and retention 
outcomes, they said they have taken other steps that address the OIG's 
recommendation to improve the quality of grantee reported performance 
data and utilize lessons learned from Recovery Act-funded green jobs 
training programs for other discretionary grant programs. First, ETA 
officials noted that they have formed an internal workgroup focused on 
improving the technical assistance provided to ETA's discretionary 
grantees about how to report program outcomes. This group hopes to 
issue recommendations in September 2013, and ETA officials believe 
these recommendations will help improve grant application 
instructions, and help ETA refine their reporting systems, among other 
things. Second, ETA officials told us that they had initiated a grant 
re-engineering project in August 2012 to identify common grant 
management challenges and develop strategies for addressing such 
challenges. For instance, the group has discussed ways to improve 
ETA's grant solicitation process, such as by including clearer 
expectations and benchmarks for performance in its solicitations for 
grant applications and by taking steps to ensure greater comparability 
of goals across grantees. Labor hopes to begin implementing the 
group's recommendations for new discretionary grant programs in August 
2013. 

Labor Monitored Grantees Using a Risk-Based Approach: 

ETA monitors most grants, including its green jobs training grants, 
through a risk-based strategy that prioritizes monitoring activities 
based upon grantees' assessed risk-levels and availability of 
resources, among other factors, and is described in its Core 
Monitoring Guide.[Footnote 45] Specifically, according to officials 
from all six of ETA's regional offices, ETA's federal project officers 
monitor grantees as part of their ongoing duties,[Footnote 46] which 
include calling grantees to offer technical assistance. In addition, 
ETA's federal project officers perform quarterly desk reviews, during 
which they review financial reports and quarterly performance reports 
that grantees are required to submit.[Footnote 47] For the green jobs 
training grants, these reports include information such as the total 
amount of grant funds spent, the number of participants who began or 
completed training, a timeline for grant activities and deliverables, 
grantee accomplishments, and technical assistance needs. During these 
quarterly reviews, federal project officers compare grantees' reported 
performance outcomes and spending rates to those goals set by grantees 
in their grant proposals. Based upon their review of each grantee's 
reported information, federal project officers enter information about 
each grantee into Labor's Grant Electronic Management System (GEMS), 
which assesses risk and generates a risk level for each grantee. 

The GEMS assessment of each grantee's risk level is then used by Labor 
to develop its risk-based monitoring strategy, which involves 
prioritizing site visits based on grantees' assessed risk-levels and 
availability of resources, among other factors.[Footnote 48] According 
to regional officials from all six offices, nearly all green jobs 
training grantees received at least one on-site monitoring visit, 
typically about halfway through the period of performance. During 
these site visits, federal project officers assessed grantees' 
management and performance and documented any noncompliance findings 
and requirements for corrective action, as necessary. For example, 
Labor's site visit guide includes questions for federal project 
officers to consider about financial and performance data reporting 
systems and performance outcomes. 

As a result of its on-site monitoring activities, Labor officials 
identified and required certain grantees to correct a variety of 
issues concerning the management of their grants. Many monitoring 
reports for the Recovery Act-funded green jobs training grants 
indicated that grantees were not on track to meet their performance 
outcomes. In such cases Labor required grantees to submit written 
corrective action plans that described what strategies they would 
undertake to increase project outcomes and how they would ensure that 
remaining funds would be used in a timely way to accomplish project 
objectives. 

Labor officials said that grantees have made significant progress 
toward attaining their goals for beginning and completing training as 
a result of both the grantees' own efforts and ETA's technical 
assistance and monitoring efforts. These officials also stressed that 
while ETA holds grantees accountable to adhering to their grant 
statements of work, grantees are not contractually obligated to meet 
performance outcomes.[Footnote 49] Unlike contracts or WIA-funded 
programs, which can impose sanctions for failing to meet projected 
targets, the accountability mechanisms for these green jobs grant 
programs were more limited. For example, ETA officials said that if a 
grantee does not achieve its placement outcomes, this can affect 
whether the grantee receives a period of performance extension for the 
current grant or, potentially, a future grant from ETA. Officials said 
that they had not withdrawn funding from any grantees for failing to 
meet performance targets for any of the four green jobs training 
programs. However, in some cases ETA officials decided not to grant 
extension requests for grantees reporting poor performance. As a 
result, some grant funds remained unexpended and will be returned to 
the Treasury, as required. 

In addition to insufficient progress toward targeted outcomes, the 
monitoring reports of the Recovery Act-funded green jobs training 
grantees identified other noncompliance findings, including 
insufficient monitoring of sub-grantees. For example, a number of 
monitoring reports indicated that primary grantees had not 
sufficiently monitored their sub-grantees. These findings are notable 
given that such a large percentage of grantees implemented their 
programs through a network of sub-grantees. Both GAO and the 
Department of Justice's OIG have stressed the importance of sufficient 
sub-recipient monitoring to the grant oversight process.[Footnote 50] 
Other noncompliance findings included grantees lacking adequate 
documentation to show program participants were eligible for services 
or grantees having failed to follow acceptable procurement processes. 
According to officials from all six regional offices, federal project 
officers did not identify any instances of fraud, waste, or abuse 
during their on-site monitoring visits. 

Conclusions: 

The Recovery Act funded multiple, substantial investments in training 
programs targeted to a specific emerging industry--energy efficiency 
and renewable energy. Most of these programs have already ended or are 
currently winding down, although a few of Labor's continuing programs, 
such as YouthBuild, have incorporated many green elements since 2009, 
and the Green Job Innovation Fund program is scheduled to remain 
active through June of 2014. Despite the sizable investment in green 
jobs, the green jobs training programs have faced a number of 
implementation challenges and final outcomes remain uncertain, 
particularly regarding placement into green jobs. A number of these 
challenges have stemmed from the need to implement the grants quickly 
and simultaneously before green jobs had been defined and more had 
been learned about the demand for green skills. Others, such as 
problems with the reliability of outcome data, can be traced to 
management issues that have compromised Labor's ability to measure the 
program's success, particularly regarding placing participants into 
training-related employment. Specifically, because Labor did not 
establish clear and timely guidelines for how to document green job 
placement outcomes, Labor is not able to assess the extent to which 
the targeted green jobs training programs placed participants in 
employment related to the training they received. 

The challenges for an emerging industry such as energy efficiency and 
renewable energy are substantial. Uncertainty and debate still 
surround the question of what constitutes a green job. Under Labor's 
current framework, almost any job can be considered green if a link 
between the employee's tasks and environmental benefits can be made. 
Indeed, most grantee officials we interviewed said that most green 
jobs they have trained participants for are primarily traditional 
skilled-trades jobs, such as carpentry or electrical work. Many have 
been termed "green" because the worker has been trained to be mindful 
of energy use and reduce waste, or has been placed where the worker's 
tasks resulted in a product or service that benefited the environment, 
such as a light-rail construction site. 

Such an approach provides certain benefits within the context of an 
emerging industry, in that many of the skills workers obtain can be 
transferred to traditional jobs in cases where local demand for green 
jobs falls below expectations. It also may serve to raise general 
worker awareness about energy efficiency and waste reduction, to the 
benefit of the employer or nation. Nonetheless, this emphasis on 
training that often takes the form of traditional skills training with 
an added layer of green may not fully align with the intent of the 
targeted training funds. 

By funding several evaluations of green jobs training and labor market 
information programs, Labor has positioned itself to build upon 
lessons learned through implementing these individual programs. A 
fundamental consideration is whether it is prudent to implement job 
training programs for an emerging industry before more is known about 
the demand for skills and workers. Another consideration is whether it 
would be more or less effective for federally-funded training programs 
to focus on providing valuable green skills and credentials applicable 
on a wide variety of jobs, rather than to devote considerable 
attention to what is defined as a green job. 

Even though Labor is scaling back its own green jobs efforts, energy 
efficiency and renewable energy will likely remain a national 
priority. Labor has established a green jobs community of practice on 
its online platform, Workforce3One, which, if maintained and used, can 
continue to facilitate information-sharing among grantees and 
workforce professionals regarding what green skills and credentials 
employers in their communities value most. In addition, the 
substantial investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy made 
through these grant programs also provides Labor an opportunity to 
identify broader lessons learned about the challenges and benefits 
associated with offering targeted training in an emerging industry, 
which could help inform the development of training for other emerging 
industries in the future. Without the benefit of such lessons learned 
and a continued focus on what is needed to address emerging 
industries, state and local workforce entities may grapple with 
similar challenges in the future. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To enhance Labor's ability to implement training programs in emerging 
industries, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Labor identify 
lessons learned from implementing the green jobs training programs. 
This could include: 

* Identifying challenges and promising strategies associated with 
training workers for emerging industries--through both targeted grant 
programs and existing programs--and considering ways to improve such 
efforts in the future. For example, taking a more measured or multi-
phased approach could allow the time necessary to better determine 
demand for an emerging industry and establish the partnerships needed 
to properly align training with available jobs. 

* Taking steps to ensure training programs adequately document outcome 
variables, particularly for targeted programs where tracking training 
relatedness is of particular interest. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor. Labor 
provided a written response (see appendix IV). Labor agreed with our 
recommendation. Specifically, Labor's response noted that the 
department has already begun assessing lessons learned from the 
implementation of its green jobs grants. Labor also cited efforts to 
compile lessons learned to inform the design and implementation of 
future grant initiatives, including new approaches to capture program 
outcomes. Labor agreed that documenting outcomes is important and said 
it will work to provide technical assistance to ensure grantees 
adequately document outcomes. Finally, Labor noted the department will 
continue to collect information on employment outcomes and wages and 
will analyze these data once they are complete to provide a more 
definitive and final picture of the extent to which former green jobs 
training participants entered and retained employment. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the 
Secretary of Labor, the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs, the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be 
available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Andrew Sherrill: 
Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to determine: (1) what is known about the 
objectives and coordination of the Department of Labor's (Labor) green 
jobs efforts, (2) what type of green jobs training grantees provided 
and how selected grantees aligned their training to meet employers' 
green jobs needs, (3) what is known about program outcomes and what 
challenges, if any, grantees faced in implementing their programs, and 
(4) what Labor has done to assist and monitor its green jobs grantees. 
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws, 
regulations, and departmental guidance and procedures. We also created 
a data collection instrument and two questionnaires to obtain 
information from Labor officials. In addition, we analyzed data from 
Labor and interviewed selected grantees by phone or in person in five 
states--California, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania--
as well as Labor officials. We conducted this performance audit from 
May 2012 through June 2013 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. 

Data Collection for Labor's Green Jobs Efforts: 

Our data collection strategy for obtaining information on green jobs 
efforts across Labor consisted of two phases. 

First, we created a data collection instrument to obtain information 
on green jobs efforts across Labor. In the data collection instrument, 
we asked offices[Footnote 51] at Labor to list two separate sets of 
efforts: (1) efforts where federal funds were appropriated or 
allocated specifically for green jobs activities and (2) efforts where 
federal funds were not specifically appropriated or allocated for 
green jobs activities, but where the office sought to incorporate 
green elements into either an existing program or ongoing activity. We 
distributed the data collection instrument to 14 of Labor's 28 
offices: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Mine 
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Women's Bureau (WB), 
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Veterans' Employment and 
Training Services (VETS), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy 
(OASP), Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB), Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS), Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships 
(CFBNP), Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), Wage 
and Hour Division (WHD), Office of Workers' Compensation Programs 
(OWCP), Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), and the Office 
of Public Affairs (OPA). These 14 offices were selected based on the 
likelihood of their administering a green jobs effort or program. For 
example, we did not distribute the data collection instrument to 
Labor's Office of Inspector General, Office of the Solicitor, or 
Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 

Second, we used the information we collected on the two separate sets 
of green jobs efforts in the data collection instruments to inform two 
follow-up questionnaires. For the first set of green jobs efforts, 
offices at Labor initially identified 16 efforts where funds were 
specifically appropriated or allocated for green-job related 
activities. For each of the 16 efforts, we sent a questionnaire by e-
mail. The questionnaire focused on (1) the goals and objectives of the 
green jobs efforts, (2) how green jobs were defined for each of the 
efforts, (3) whether offices coordinated with others on these efforts, 
and (4) funding levels for each of the efforts. We pre-tested the 
questionnaire with two respondents from OSHA in December and made 
revisions. We then sent the questionnaires out on a rolling basis 
between January 16 and February 22, 2013. We determined 2 of the 16 
efforts to be out of scope. Of the remaining 14 directly-funded green 
jobs efforts across five offices (OSHA, ETA, VETS, ILAB, and BLS), we 
received completed questionnaires for 13 and one partially completed 
questionnaire by April 3, 2013. [Footnote 52] We also identified 3 
additional directly-funded efforts, for a total of 17 efforts. 

For the second set of green jobs efforts, offices at Labor initially 
identified 54 efforts where funds were not specifically appropriated 
or allocated for green jobs efforts, but green elements were 
incorporated into existing programs or ongoing activities. We 
identified two additional green efforts that fall under this category. 
We sent a brief questionnaire consisting of two questions by e-mail in 
an attached Microsoft Word form. The two questions included in the 
questionnaire were pre-tested as part of the more detailed survey 
mentioned above. All questionnaires were sent on January 29, 2013, or 
on February 22, 2013. We determined 10 of the 56 efforts to be out of 
scope. Of the remaining 46 efforts across six offices (OSHA, WB, ETA, 
VETS, ILAB, and CFBNP), we received completed questionnaires for all 
46 efforts by March 21, 2013. Labor later identified 2 additional 
efforts, for a total of 48 efforts. 

Because the majority of Recovery Act funding for green jobs efforts 
were directed toward training programs, we focused much of our review 
on four grant programs--the three training-focused green jobs training 
programs funded by the Recovery Act (Energy Training Partnership 
grants, Pathways Out of Poverty grants, and State Energy Sector 
Partnership and Training grants) as well as the newer Green Jobs 
Innovation Fund. To report on the characteristics of Labor's 103 green 
jobs training grantees, we obtained data from Labor on each training-
focused green jobs grant administered by ETA. Specifically, we 
obtained information on the grantee's location, organizational type, 
and whether or not the grantee had sub-grantees. 

Selected Grantees and Analysis of Program Outcome Data: 

To better understand the type of green jobs training grantees 
provided, how grantees aligned their training to meet green jobs 
needs, and what challenges, if any, they faced in implementing their 
programs, we analyzed data from Labor and interviewed 11 out of the 
103 green jobs training grantees between August 2012 and April 2013. 
We conducted site visits in four states and interviewed grantees in 
two additional states by phone. We visited grantees in California, 
Illinois, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, and interviewed grantees in 
Connecticut and Louisiana by phone. We selected grantees in these 
states because these states had a relatively high number of Labor 
green jobs grant recipients, grantees in these states received GJIF 
grants, and the states varied in their geographic locations. We 
selected both Recovery Act-and GJIF-funded green jobs training 
grantees, but emphasized GJIF-funded grantees since unlike many of the 
Recovery Act programs, the GJIF program is still active. 

During each site visit we interviewed Labor's green jobs training 
grant officials, training providers, local employers, and, to the 
extent possible, program participants. Similarly, during our phone 
calls we interviewed grant officials and in one case employers. During 
the interviews, we collected information about the types of green jobs 
training that were funded by Labor's green jobs training grants and 
the outcomes of grantees' programs, including the impact of the 
training with respect to green job placement, or otherwise. We 
specifically asked grantees about any challenges they may have 
encountered as they developed and implemented their program, including 
whether they experienced challenges with respect to placing 
participants into green jobs. In addition, we collected information on 
how local employers were involved in the development of the training 
programs and the green job opportunities they were able to offer 
program participants. We cannot generalize our findings beyond the 
interviews we conducted. 

To assess the reliability of Labor's training type and outcome data, 
we (1) reviewed existing documentation related to the data sources, 
including Labor's Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports, (2) 
electronically tested the data to identify obvious problems with 
completeness or accuracy, and (3) interviewed knowledgeable agency 
officials about the data. We determined that the data were 
sufficiently reliable for limited purposes. For example, we determined 
that training type data were sufficiently reliable for purposes of 
reporting out on the industries for which grantees most frequently 
trained participants. We included information about the extent to 
which Recovery Act-funded green jobs training grantees collectively 
reported meeting their enrollment, training completion, and entered 
employment targets for those grantees for which final data were 
available as of December 31, 2012. However, based upon the OIG's 
findings, we determined that the outcome data were not sufficiently 
reliable to determine the success of the programs. Finally, based upon 
the OIG's findings, we determined that the data on the extent to which 
grantees entered training-related employment were not reliable enough 
to report, even compared to targeted levels. 

Analysis of Labor's Technical Assistance and Monitoring Efforts: 

To describe Labor's technical assistance efforts, we reviewed 
technical assistance guides and material posted to Workforce3One, 
interviewed Labor officials, and discussed Labor's technical 
assistance with selected grantees. To describe and assess Labor's 
monitoring efforts, we reviewed its Core Monitoring guide, interviewed 
Labor officials in Washington, D.C. and in each of ETA's six regional 
offices--Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, and San 
Francisco--and obtained and reviewed copies of Labor's monitoring 
reports for green jobs training grantees, including recipients of 
Energy Training Partnership, Pathways Out of Poverty, and State Energy 
Sector Partnership and Training grants. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Labor's Green Jobs Efforts since 2009 for Which Funds 
Were Appropriated or Allocated, by Focus Area: 

Focus Area: Training and supportive services: 

Office: ETA; 
Name of effort: Energy Training Partnership (ETP) grants; 
Reported description: Through the Energy Training Partnership Grants, 
ETA awarded nearly $100 million to 25 projects. Grantees were to 
provide training and placement services in the energy efficiency and 
renewable energy industries to workers impacted by national energy and 
environmental policy, individuals in need of updated training related 
to the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries, and 
unemployed workers. Grantees were required to partner with labor 
organizations, employers and workforce investment boards. Grant awards 
ranged from approximately $1.4 to $5 million. 

Office: ETA; 
Name of effort: Pathways Out of Poverty (POP) grants; 
Reported description: In total, Pathways Out of Poverty grantees 
received approximately $150 million in Recovery Act funds. The grant 
aimed to help targeted populations find pathways out of poverty 
through employment in energy efficiency and renewable energy 
industries. Grants ranged from approximately $2 million to $8 million 
and were awarded to eight national nonprofit organizations with local 
affiliates and to 30 local public organizations or private nonprofit 
organizations. 

Office: ETA; 
Name of effort: State Energy Sector Partnership and Training (SESP) 
grants; 
Reported description: Through SESP, ETA awarded nearly $190 million to 
state workforce investment boards in partnership with state workforce 
agencies. The grants were designed to provide training, job placement, 
and related activities that reflect a comprehensive statewide energy 
sector strategy including the governor's overall workforce vision, 
state energy policies, and training activities that lead to employment 
in targeted industry sectors. ETA made 34 awards that ranged from 
approximately $2 to $6 million each. 

Office: ETA; 
Name of effort: Green Jobs Innovation Fund (GJIF); 
Reported description: The Green Jobs Innovation Fund was authorized 
under the Workforce Investment Act to help workers receive job 
training in green industry sectors and occupations and access green 
career pathways. In total, $38 million in grant funds were awarded to 
six organizations with networks of local affiliates to develop green 
jobs training programs. These programs were required to incorporate 
green career pathways either by forging linkages between Registered 
Apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs or by integrating the 
delivery of technical and basic skills training through community-
based partnerships. 

Office: ETA; 
Name of effort: Job Corps; 
Reported description: Job Corps is a residential job training program 
for at-risk youth. The Job Corps program aims to teach participants 
the skills they need to secure a meaningful job, continue their 
education, and be independent. Job Corps has instituted a number of 
measures in recent years to "green" its job training programs and 
facilities. Recovery Act funding was used to incorporate "green" 
training elements into the automotive, advanced manufacturing, and 
construction trades at Job Corps centers nationwide and to pilot three 
new "green" training programs at selected Job Corps centers: Solar 
Panel Installation, Weatherization, and SmartGrid technology. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: Susan Harwood Training Grant Program; 
Reported description: Targeted topic training grant in which 
applicants propose training based on the occupational safety and 
health topics chosen by OSHA. Alternative Energy Industry Hazards and 
Green Jobs Industry Hazards were included as topics in FY 2009 and FY 
2010, respectively. 

Office: VETS; 
Name of effort: Veterans' Workforce Investment Program (VWIP); 
Reported description: VWIP supports veterans' employment and training 
services to help eligible veterans reintegrate into meaningful 
employment and to stimulate the development of effective and targeted 
service delivery systems. In FYs 2009 and 2010, project proposals 
received priority consideration if they supported "Green Energy Jobs" 
and proposed clear strategies for training and employment in the 
renewable energy economy. 

Focus Area: Data collection and reporting: 

Office: ETA; 
Name of effort: State Labor Market Information Improvement (SLMII) 
grants; 
Reported description: ETA awarded approximately $48.8 million in State 
Labor Market Information Improvement Grants to support the research 
and analysis of labor market data to assess economic activity in 
energy efficiency and renewable energy industries and identify 
occupations within those industries. Grant activities included 
collecting and disseminating labor market information, enhancing 
strategies to connect job seekers to green job banks, and helping 
ensure that workers find employment after completing training. ETA 
awarded 30 grants of between $763,000 and $4 million. 

Office: BLS; 
Name of effort: Green Goods and Services (GGS) program; 
Reported description: This is a survey-based program, covering 120,000 
business establishments, which provides a measure of national and 
state employment in industries that produce goods or provide services 
that benefit the environment. 

Office: BLS; 
Name of effort: Occupational Employment and Wages in Green Goods and 
Services (GGS-OCC) program; 
Reported description: This program provides occupational employment 
and wage information for businesses that produce green goods and 
services. 

Office: BLS; 
Name of effort: Green Technologies and Practices (GTP) survey; 
Reported description: This is a special survey of business 
establishments designed to collect data on establishments' use of 
green technologies and practices and the occupations of workers who 
spend more than half of their time involved in green technologies and 
practices. 

Office: BLS; 
Name of effort: Employment Projections program; 
Reported description: Green Career Information staff within the 
Employment Projections program produces career information on green 
jobs including wages, expected job prospects, what workers do on the 
job, working conditions, and necessary education, training, and 
credentials. 

Focus Area: Technical assistance: 

Office: ETA; 
Name of effort: Occupational Information Network (O*NET); 
Reported description: Information that O*NET provided was used to 
support all; Recovery Act green jobs grantees who were doing green 
jobs data collection and training in the states. These Recovery Act 
funds to; O*NET were for the specific purpose of focusing occupational 
research and data collection on green jobs on an accelerated pace. 

Office: ETA; 
Name of effort: Technical Assistance; 
Reported description: The Technical Assistance Partnership led by the 
National Governor's Association supported Recovery Act-funded green 
jobs grantees. 

Office: ETA; 
Name of effort: Green Capacity Building Grants (GCBG); 
Reported description: In total, ETA awarded $5 million in Recovery Act 
funds to training programs already funded by the Department of Labor 
to build their capacity to provide training in the energy efficiency 
and renewable energy industries. ETA awarded 62 of these grants, with 
awards ranging from $50,000 to $100,000. 

Office: ETA; 
Name of effort: Administrative Expenses; 
Reported description: ETA used $5 million of the $500 million 
authorized for the Recovery Act green jobs grants for administrative 
expenses (salaries and expenses). This does not include any funds that 
were retained for technical assistance for these grants. 
Administrative expenses were in part used to fund three separate 
evaluations of Recovery Act green jobs programs: (1) a Labor Market 
Information evaluation, (2) a green jobs and health care 
implementation report, and (3) a 5-year impact evaluation. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: Nanomaterials Safe Practice and Handling Guidelines; 
Reported description: This guidance was funded by the Recovery Act and 
is a guidance document for R&D workers and employers in the 
nanotechnology field. 

Office: ILAB; 
Name of effort: Trilateral Roundtable: The Employment Dimension of the 
Transition to a Green Economy (February 3-4, 2011); 
Reported description: The U.S. Department of Labor, Human Resources 
and Skills Development Canada and the European Commission brought 
together U.S., Canadian, and European experts representing 
governments, trade unions, industry, and nongovernmental organizations 
to discuss the transition to the green economy. Discussions focused on 
defining and measuring green jobs, establishing effective green jobs 
partnerships, designing green skills development and training, 
ensuring green jobs serve as a pathway out of poverty, and examining 
the quality of green jobs, as well as the sustainability of green jobs 
investments by governments. 

Source: Responses provided by Labor. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Labor's Green Jobs Efforts since 2009 for Which Funds 
Were Not Appropriated or Allocated, by Focus Area: 

Focus Area: Information materials: 

Office: ETA; 
Name of effort: Office of Apprenticeship (OA); 
Reported description: In June 2009, Labor/ETA/OA published a report 
entitled, "The Greening of Registered Apprenticeship: An Environmental 
Scan of the Impact of Green Jobs on Registered Apprenticeship and 
Implications for Workforce Development." More recently, as part of the 
75th Anniversary of the National Apprenticeship Act in 2012, OA put 
out a call to sponsors across the county to collect Registered 
Apprenticeship Innovators or Trailblazers. This process identified a 
number of innovative programs across the country, including several 
specific examples of apprenticeship programs with a focus on green 
efforts. 

Office: ILAB; 
Name of effort: OECD Working Party on Employment; April 11, 2012; 
Reported description: Labor officials participated in a technical 
review of economic research presented in "What Green Growth Means for 
Workers and Labour Market Policies: An Initial Assessment." 
Subsequently the paper appeared as Chapter 4 in the 2012 OECD 
Employment Outlook. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: Green Job Hazards Web-site; 
Reported description: An OSHA website providing green job safety 
information on specific green jobs, such as green roofing, waste 
management, wind energy, recycling, weatherization, and geothermal 
industries. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: Workforce Guidelines for Home Energy Upgrades; 
Reported description: Provided safety information for weatherization 
jobs in collaboration with Department of Energy, Environmental 
Protection Agency, and National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health (NIOSH). 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: EPA's Healthy Indoor Environment Protocols for Home 
Energy Upgrades; 
Reported description: OSHA worked with EPA in the publication of this 
guidance which identifies critical indoor environmental quality risks 
and worker assessment protocols, and provides guidance to address 
these issues. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: Green and Clean: How Hospitals Can Protect Patients 
and Workers by Using Earth-Friendly and Sustainable Products/Practices; 
Reported description: Through OSHA and The Joint Commission and Joint 
Commission Resources (JCR) Alliance, JCR developed an article that 
discusses the importance of adopting sustainable products and 
practices for cleaning, sanitizing, and disinfecting healthcare 
facilities. The article also provides requirements for selecting green 
cleaning products (January 2013). 

Office: WB; 
Name of effort: Why Green is Your Color, Manual; 
Publishing of a manual: Why Green Is Your Color: A Woman's Guide to a 
Sustainable Career. Designed to assist women with job training and 
career development; 
Reported description: [Empty]. 

Office: WB; 
Name of effort: Teleconference Calls and Fact Sheets; 
Reported description: A series of teleconferences for workforce 
practitioners about how to connect women with green jobs. A fact sheet 
accompanied each teleconference. 

Focus Area: Partnerships: 

Office: CFBNP; 
Name of effort: Facilitated a partnership between OSHA regional office 
and green jobs grantee; 
Reported description: In May 2010, the Deputy Director of CFBNP 
facilitated a partnership between OSHA's Cincinnati office and East 
End Community Services in Dayton, OH - a Pathways Out of Poverty sub-
grantee seeking a training module on safe handling of asbestos and 
lead removal as part of a green jobs training program. 

Office: ETA; 
Name of effort: Interagency working groups (with Energy, Education, 
and HUD); 
Reported description: Interagency working groups related to clean 
energy and green jobs in which Labor works with the U.S. Departments 
of Education, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development. 

Office: ILAB; 
Name of effort: March 21, 2012 Anniversary Paper from the 2011 
Reported description: Trilateral Roundtable on the Transition to a 
Green Economy; 
The U.S. Department of Labor, Human Resources and Skills Development 
Canada and the European Commission each contributed two updates on 
promising practices or strategies that were first explored at the 
Roundtable. 

Office: ILAB; 
Name of effort: 2012 G20 Labor and Employment Ministers' meeting, May 
17-18, 2012; 
Reported description: International labor and employment ministers met 
to discuss employment issues, including green jobs and high youth 
unemployment rates. 

Office: ILAB; 
Name of effort: Participated in OECD's Employment, Labor and Social 
Affairs Committee meeting that discussed a green jobs project; 
Reported description: Labor officials participated in the October 13-
14, 2011 ELSAC meeting in Paris, France. One topic discussed at the 
meeting was the OECD's green jobs project. 

Office: ILAB; 
Name of effort: Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development input; 
Reported description: Labor staff articulated labor and employment 
priorities to the U.S. interagency for inclusion in U.S. government 
positions for Rio+20, including for the U.S. position paper and during 
negotiations of the Rio outcome document. 

Office: ILAB; 
Name of effort: International Labor Organization Governing Body; 
Reported description: Labor staff participated in International Labor 
Organization Governing Body discussions on green jobs and sustainable 
development. 

Office: ILAB; 
Name of effort: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Symposium on Human 
Capital Policies for Green Growth and Employment; 
Reported description: The two-day Symposium convened experts from 16 
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation member economies and international 
organizations to discuss sustainable economic development policies. 
The event was hosted by the Department of Education, in partnership 
with Labor. 

Office: ILAB; 
Focus Area: Information materials: US-Brazil Memorandum of Name of 
effort: Understanding on Labor Cooperation (March 20-21, 2012); 
Reported description: U.S. Secretary of Labor and her counterpart from 
Brazil signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Labor Cooperation in 
May 2012. The memorandum highlights cooperation in the area of green 
jobs. 

Office: ILAB; 
Name of effort: Information exchange with officials from Brazil's 
Ministry of Environmental Affairs about U.S. Labor's Green Jobs 
Initiatives; 
Reported description: The Women's Bureau Director led a Labor 
delegation meeting with officials from Brazil's Ministry of 
Environmental Affairs at U.S. EPA about the definition of green jobs, 
and initiatives in both countries. 

Office: ILAB; 
Name of effort: Inter-American Conference of Ministers of Labor, of 
the Organization of American States; 
Reported description: The October 2012 conference working group 
meetings considered green jobs in follow-up to the XVII IACML 
Declaration and Plan of Action adopted by the ministers of labor of 
the Americas in November 2011. The Plan of Action called for specific 
follow-up actions related to green jobs including, inter-alia, in-
depth exchange of best practices in the region. 

Office: ILAB; 
Name of effort: African Growth and Opportunity Act's African Women 
Entrepreneur Program Briefing; 
Reported description: DOL officials met with 47 women leaders from Sub-
Saharan Africa under the African Growth and Opportunity Act's African 
Women Entrepreneur Program, sharing best practices, perspectives and 
strategies to train and employ women in green jobs. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: Federal Workgroup on Spray Polyurethane Foam; 
Reported description: Federal workgroup (EPA, OSHA, NIOSH, CPSC) 
working with industry groups (ACC, CPI, SPFI) on environmental, 
occupational, and consumer health and safety issues with the use of 
spray polyurethane foam weatherization products. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: OSHA/American Wind Energy Association Alliance; 
Reported description: Presentations by Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Labor for Occupational Safety and Health to general session, sharing 
of knowledge, development of informational products and participation 
in quarterly meetings. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: Recovery through Retrofit: Meeting; 
Reported description: OSHA and Labor participated in an interagency 
Recovery through Retrofit Working Group comprised of over 80 technical 
staff members from the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban 
Development, and Labor; Environmental Protection Agency; and USD that 
drafted standards for workers who will be involved in retrofitting 
homes to make them more energy efficient. The group met in Denver for 
a 3 days and a follow-up meeting was held in Washington D.C. This is 
the Vice President's initiative. As a part of the working group, OSHA 
provided technical advice and input in the worker protection aspects 
of the standards that were drafted. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: National Alliance with the Professional Landcare 
Network (PLANET); 
Reported description: One of the goals of this Alliance is to 
participate in PLANET's Green Industry Conference. 

Focus Area: Publicity and outreach: 

Office: CFBNP; 
Name of effort: Secretary of Labor and CFBNP Hold Green Jobs 
Discussion with Philanthropic Leaders; 
Reported description: On December 1, 2010, Secretary of Labor and 
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training met with leaders from 
several national foundations to discuss significant investments in 
green jobs programs, as well as effective strategies that create 
employment and advancement opportunities for low-income populations in 
the green job industry. 

Office: CFBNP; 
Name of effort: Publicity of RecycleForce green jobs program for ex-
offenders; 
Reported description: In 2012, the Director of CFBNP wrote a blog for 
Fatherhood.gov about an Employment and Training Administration's 
grantee RecycleForce that provides green jobs to ex-offenders. 

Office: ETA; 
Name of effort: Job Train's "Earth Day Every Day Campaign"; 
Reported description: Held the week of April 19th-23rd, 2010, the 
campaign was designed "to raise environmental awareness among students 
and staff and serve as friendly reminders to be more energy efficient." 

Office: ILAB; 
Name of effort: Briefing for Chinese Embassy official; 
Reported description: Labor staff briefed an official from the Chinese 
Embassy on Labor green jobs initiatives. 

Office: ILAB; 
Name of effort: Briefing for Confederation of Venezuelan Labor; 
Washington, DC liaison; 
Reported description: Labor staff briefed the liaison on Labor green 
jobs efforts. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: Small Business Forum: "Green Jobs: Safety & Health 
Outlook for Workers and Small Employers"; 
Reported description: A forum on OSHA's green jobs efforts and 
workplace hazards associated with green jobs. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: Presentation at the Center for Polyurethane Industry 
Annual Conference; 
Reported description: Presentation - "What You Need to Know About the 
Safe Use of Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF) Briefing on Spray 
Polyurethane Foam". 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: Participate in NIOSH Going Green Workshop; 
Reported description: OSHA Team attended as participating partner and 
Assistant Secretary spoke. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: US/EU Conference Brussels; 
Reported description: OSHA co-chaired the topic, "OSH in Green 
Economy" for the conference on behalf of the United States. OSHA led 
the discussions and wrote the accompanying white paper. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: Green Jobs, Good Jobs National Conference; 
Reported description: OSHA senior staff made presentations at 
conference on hazards of green jobs. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: Green Jobs, Good Jobs, Regional Conferences; 
Reported description: OSHA personnel made presentations in Atlanta, GA; 
Los Angeles, CA; Philadelphia, PA; and Detroit, MI. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: Trilateral Roundtable: With Canada and European 
Commission; 
Reported description: OSHA participated in: The Employment Dimension 
of the Transition to a Green Economy". The event brought together 
experts from government, trade unions, industry, and other 
stakeholders to exchange information, best practices, and ideas on 
preparing workers and employers to meet the increasingly complex skill 
demands of this transition. OSHA made a presentation on Green Jobs 
hazards. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: OSHA Alliance Program Construction Roundtable; 
Reported description: Roundtable has received presentations from CPWR, 
NIOSH and Department of Commerce on green jobs within the construction 
industry. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: CleanMed Conference on Worker Safety, Patient Safety, 
Environmental Safety; 
Reported description: First Annual Research Exchange on Advancing 
Patient, Worker and Environmental Safety and Sustainability in the 
Health Care Sector. OSHA presentation on focus on green jobs in 
relation to the healthcare industry. The audience was mainly 
healthcare workers, employers and researchers. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: OSHA - NIOSH Infosheet & Posters: Protecting Workers 
Who Use Cleaning Chemical; 
Reported description: Provides information to employers on practices 
to help keep workers safe when working with cleaning chemicals, 
including green cleaning products. The posters are available in 
English, Chinese, Tagalog and Spanish. The poster includes a section 
devoted to Green Cleaners. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: Presentation at American Industrial Hygiene Conference 
& Exposition; 
Reported description: Topic: Making Green Jobs Good Jobs - We All Want 
To, So What is OSHA Doing to Make it Happen? 

Office: WB; 
Name of effort: Women and Green Jobs Roundtables; 
Reported description: Discussions at over 30 U.S. locations involving 
business and community leaders regarding emerging employment 
opportunities in green job fields. 

Office: WB; 
Name of effort: Why Green is Your Color, outreach materials; 
Reported description: Posters, mobile marketing displays, postcards, 
flash drives. 

Focus Area: Technical assistance: 

Office: ETA; 
Name of effort: Green Jobs Community of Practice (CoP) on 
Workforce3One; 
Reported description: ETA designed the Green jobs CoP to serve as a 
platform for workforce professionals and green job thought leaders to 
discuss and share promising practices, to create partnerships for 
green job workforce solutions, and to leverage Recovery Act 
investments. Specifically, the Green Jobs CoP was designed to provide 
an interactive platform for providing technical assistance through 
webinars, discussion boards, blogs and other online resources to 
workforce professionals, particularly those at the state and workforce 
investment board levels as well as green jobs grantees (including 
recipients of upcoming Solicitation for Grant Applications). 

Focus Area: Training and supportive services: 

Office: ETA; 
Name of effort: YouthBuild; 
Reported description: The YouthBuild program targets out-of-school 
youth ages 16 to 24 and provides them with an alternative education 
pathway to a high school diploma or GED. Most YouthBuild programs have 
incorporated green building into their construction training. As part 
of this training, participants learn about environmental issues that 
affect their communities and how they can provide leadership in this 
area. 

Office: OSHA; 
Name of effort: Blue-Green Alliance Conference; 
Reported description: Attended the Blue-Green Alliance conference. 

Office: VETS; 
Name of effort: Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program; 
Reported description: The purpose of this program is to expedite the 
reintegration of homeless veterans into the labor force. These grants 
are intended to address two objectives: to provide services to assist 
in reintegrating homeless veterans into meaningful employment within 
the labor force, and to stimulate the development of effective service 
delivery systems that will address the complex problems facing 
homeless veterans. The programs' technical assistance guide refers to 
collecting data on green jobs participants. 

Office: WB; 
Name of effort: Why Green is Your Color, Web-based training; 
Reported description: Web-based training to help women find and 
succeed in green jobs. 

Office: WB; 
Name of effort: Green Jobs for Women Pilot Training Projects; 
Reported description: Pilot training projects designed to prepare 
women to enter high-growth, high-demand green jobs. 

Source: Responses provided by Labor. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

U.S. Department of Labor: 
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training: 
Washington, D.C. 20210: 

June 12, 2013: 
        
Mr. Andrew Sherrill: 
Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G. Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Sherrill: 

On behalf of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), I want to thank you 
for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled: Labor's Green 
Jobs Efforts Highlight Challenges of Targeted Training Programs for 
Emerging Industries (GA0-13-555). 

The GAO report recommends the following: 

To enhance Labor's ability to implement training programs in emerging 
industries, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Labor identify 
lessons learned from implementing the green jobs training programs. 
This could include: 

* Identifying challenges and promising strategies associated with 
training workers for emerging industries—through both targeted grant 
programs and existing programs—and considering ways to improve such 
efforts in the future. For example, taking a more measured or multi-
phased approach could allow the time necessary to better determine 
demand for an emerging industry and establish the partnerships needed 
to properly align training with available jobs. 

* Taking steps to ensure training programs adequately document outcome 
variables, particularly for targeted populations where tracking 
training relatedness is of particular interest. 

The Department agrees with this recommendation and has already begun 
assessing lessons learned from the initial implementation of its green 
jobs grants. An important element of the comprehensive technical 
assistance plan supporting these grants has been to document practices,
in areas such as grants management, employer engagement, training, and 
participant follow-up, throughout the grant period, and to compile a 
listing of lessons learned upon completion of the grants in June, 2013 
to inform the design and implementation of future grant initiatives, 
including new approaches to capture program outcomes. 

An example of how DOL has already identified promising strategies to 
shape a grant solicitation is the development of the Green Jobs 
Innovation Fund (GJIF) initiative in 2011, which was based
on lessons learned from the Recovery Act grants. During the 
implementation of the Recovery Act grants, DOL reviewed research 
findings and feedback from grantees, employers, industry, and other 
key stakeholders, to identify work-based training models, such as 
Registered Apprenticeship and On-the-Job Training, as valuable 
learning strategies because they help participants acquire the skills 
employers need while participants earn wages. In addition, the 
Recovery Act grants have reinforced, that for many, the need to 
upgrade basic skills as well as acquire new occupational skills is 
critical to job placement. DOL is incorporating these lessons by 
funding GJIF grantees to implement green jobs training programs that 
develop stronger linkages with Registered Apprenticeship and pre-
apprenticeship programs and/or integrate basic skills and occupational 
training programs in partnership with community-based organizations. 
DOL also continues to incorporate work-based learning opportunities 
into later grant solicitations. 

DOL agrees that documenting outcomes is important and will work to 
continue to provide technical assistance to ensure that grantees 
adequately document outcomes achieved, with a focus on the 
Department's three adult common performance outcomes of employment, 
job retention, and average earnings. DOL also agrees that collecting 
information on training-related employment outcome variables helps to 
inform program management and continuous improvement activities as 
well as to illustrate program success. We also believe that the 
ultimate success of the programs should be measured by the three 
employment-related outcome measures which the Department currently 
uses for its adult job training and employment programs. 

As the report acknowledges, DOL will continue to collect additional 
information on employment outcomes and wages using state unemployment 
insurance (UI) wage record data for all participants of the green jobs 
training grants, which is available to DOL nine months after 
participants exit the program. Preliminary results based on UI wage 
records as of December 31, 2012, for participants who were unemployed 
at entry and have exited green jobs programs show a 52 percent 
employment rate. For those who found employment, 83 percent retained 
employment for six-months after completing a green jobs training 
program. They earned average earnings of about $25,000 for a six-month 
period after program completion. After the grants close, and longer-
term UI wage record data become available, the Employment Training 
Administration will assess employment outcomes using complete UI wage 
data to provide a more definitive and final picture of the extent to 
which former green jobs training participants entered and retained 
employment. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report. If 
you would like additional information, please do not hesitate to call 
me at (202) 693-2700. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Gerri Fiala: 
Acting Assistant Secretary: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Andrew Sherrill, (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Laura Heald, Assistant 
Director; Amy Buck, Meredith Moore, and David Perkins made significant 
contributions to all phases of the work. Also contributing to this 
report were James Bennett, David Chrisinger, Stanley Czerwinski, Beryl 
Davis, Andrea Dawson, Peter Del Toro, Alexander Galuten, Kathy Leslie, 
Sheila McCoy, Kim McGatlin, Jean McSween, Rhiannon Patterson, Karla 
Springer, Vanessa Taylor, and Mark Ward. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Grants to State and Local Governments: An Overview of Funding Levels 
and Selected Challenges. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1016]. Washington, D.C.: September 
25, 2012. 

Renewable Energy: Federal Agencies Implement Hundreds of Initiatives. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-260]. Washington, D.C.: 
February 27, 2012. 

Workforce Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations between Workforce 
Boards and Employers Helped Meet Local Needs. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-97]. Washington, D.C.: January 19, 
2012. 

Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and 
Better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-317]. Washington, D.C.: May 20, 
2011. 

Recovery Act: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant 
Recipients Face Challenges Meeting Legislative and Program Goals and 
Requirements. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-379]. 
Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2011. 

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on 
Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could 
Promote Efficiencies. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92]. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 
2011. 

Recovery Act: States' and Localities' Uses of Funds and Actions Needed 
to Address Implementation Challenges and Bolster Accountability. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-604]. Washington, D.C.: 
May 26, 2010. 

Recovery Act: Funds Continue to Provide Fiscal Relief to States and 
Localities, While Accountability and Reporting Challenges Need to Be 
Fully Addressed. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-1016]. 
Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2009. 

Employment and Training Program Grants: Evaluating Impact and 
Enhancing Monitoring Would Improve Accountability. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-486]. Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2008. 

Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Improve the 
Workforce System. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1061T]. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 
2007. 

Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in 
Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help Gauge 
Employer Involvement. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-167]. Washington, D.C.: December 
22, 2006. 

Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but 
Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-650]. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 
2005. 

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

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed 
Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-657]. Washington, D.C.: 
June 1, 2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to 
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and 
Information Sharing Is Needed. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-725]. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 
2003. 

Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. Washington, D.C.: 
November 1999. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] See 29 U.S.C. § 2916(e)(1)(B) for a list of these industries. 

[2] The Green Jobs Act of 2007, which amended the Workforce Investment 
Act, was enacted as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act 
of 2007 (EISA). Pub. L. No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492, 1748. EISA 
concerned, among other things, energy initiatives such as increasing 
fuel economy standards, increasing the production of biofuels, and 
improving appliance and lighting standards. 

[3] Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 173. 

[4] Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 901, 123 Stat. 115, 191. For a list of our 
Recovery Act-related products, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/recovery]. 

[5] For the purposes of this report we refer to organizational 
entities within Labor as offices. These entities could include 
agencies, administrations, bureaus, centers, and divisions. 
Specifically, the 14 offices we identified are: Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration (OSHA), Mine Safety and Health 
Administration (MSHA), Women's Bureau (WB), Employment and Training 
Administration (ETA), Veterans' Employment and Training Services 
(VETS), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy (OASP), Bureau of 
International Labor Affairs (ILAB), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 
Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (CFBNP), Office 
of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), Wage and Hour 
Division (WHD), Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP), 
Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), and the Office of 
Public Affairs (OPA). 

[6] For the 14 directly-funded green efforts in our scope, we received 
13 completed questionnaires and one partially completed questionnaire. 
We also identified 3 additional directly-funded efforts, for a total 
of 17 efforts. For the second set of green jobs efforts where funds 
were not specifically appropriated or allocated for green jobs 
activities, but where the office sought to incorporate green elements 
into either an existing program or ongoing activity, we received 
completed questionnaires for 46 efforts in our scope and we did not 
survey Labor officials for 2 of the 48 efforts later identified. See 
appendix I for more information. 

[7] We visited grantees in California, Illinois, Minnesota, and 
Pennsylvania, and interviewed grantees in Connecticut and Louisiana by 
phone. 

[8] Pub. L. No. 110-140, Title X, 121 Stat. 1492, 1748. 

[9] U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Recovery 
Act: Employment and Training Administration Grant Issuance and 
Monitoring Policies and Procedures for Discretionary Grants Including 
Green Jobs Are Comprehensive but Funding Challenges Threaten the 
Quality of Future Monitoring Activities, 18-10-013-03-390 (Sept. 30, 
2010); Recovery Act: Slow Pace Placing Workers Into Jobs Jeopardizes 
Employment Goals of the Green Jobs Program, 18-11-004-03-390 (Sept. 
30, 2011); and Recovery Act: Green Jobs Program Reports Limited 
Success in Meeting Employment and Retention Goals as of June 30, 2012, 
18-13-001-03-390 (Oct. 25, 2012). 

[10] These seven industries are (1) energy efficient building, 
construction, and retrofits; (2) renewable electric power; (3) energy 
efficient and advanced drive train vehicles; (4) biofuels; (5) 
deconstruction and materials use industries; (6) energy efficiency 
assessment serving the residential, commercial, or industrial sectors; 
and (7) manufacturers that produce sustainable products using 
environmentally sustainable processes and materials. 

[11] The Occupational Information Network (O*NET) is overseen by ETA 
and is the nation's primary source of occupational information. 
Central to the project is the O*NET database, which contains 
information on hundreds of standardized and occupation-specific 
descriptors. O*NET is being developed under the sponsorship of the 
U.S. Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration 
through a grant to the North Carolina Department of Commerce. For more 
information on O*NET's green economy activities, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.onetcenter.org/green.html]. 

[12] According to BLS's definition, green jobs are either (1) jobs in 
businesses that produce goods or provide services that benefit the 
environment or conserve natural resources, or (2) jobs in which 
workers' duties involve making their establishment's production 
processes more environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources. 

[13] Focus areas generally fell into 1 of 7 categories provided by 
GAO: (1) information materials; (2) publicity and outreach; (3) 
technical assistance; (4) partnerships; (5) training and supportive 
services; (6) data collection and reporting; and (7) capacity building. 

[14] We requested information from 14 different offices across Labor. 
These 14 offices were selected based on the likelihood of their 
administering a green jobs effort or program. 

[15] Labor provided extensions to the original period of performance 
for selected grantees in each of the five Recovery Act green jobs 
grant programs (see figure 3). 

[16] According to Labor officials, the BLS Green Jobs initiative was 
not connected to the Recovery Act in any way. 

[17] This grant is included in the $89 million identified by Labor as 
allocated or appropriated for green jobs activities in addition to the 
Recovery Act-funded programs (see figure 2). 

[18] ETA refers to this time as the period of performance. 

[19] In total, ETA awarded 189 green jobs grants with Recovery Act 
funding, of which 97 were primarily focused on training. In addition, 
ETA awarded 6 GJIF training grants for green jobs training. The 
analysis in this section pertains to the 103 training specific green 
jobs grants awarded through the 3 Recovery Act-funded programs 
primarily focused on training (SESP, POP, and ETP) and the GJIF 
program, which was funded as a pilot and demonstration project under 
WIA. 

[20] Over half of grantees provided training through a network of 
local affiliates or sub-affiliates, sometimes within a single state or 
located in multiple states. Labor officials could not provide the 
exact number or location of such sub-grantees for the three Recovery 
Act-funded green jobs training programs, so this analysis includes 
only the location of primary grant recipients. 

[21] As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

[22] Labor provides oversight of sub-grantees through its monitoring 
of primary grantees, which includes ensuring that primary grantees 
monitor their sub-grantees and document monitoring results. 

[23] Ensuring that green jobs would be accessible to women and 
minorities was identified as a significant challenge in the Vice 
President's 2009 Middle Class Task Force report, Green Jobs: a Pathway 
to a Strong Middle Class. 

[24] While there are 48 efforts in total, we did not survey Labor 
officials for 2 of the 48 efforts listed in appendix III. 

[25] The number of grantees interviewed and training programs examined 
totaled 11. Therefore, for the remainder of this section, only the 
relevant count of grantees or programs will be presented within 
parentheses and it can be assumed that the count is out of 11. It can 
also be assumed that the qualifier "all" equates to 11. 

[26] BLS counts a job as being green if it is held by a worker who 
spends over half their time involved in green technologies and 
practices. 

[27] Labor has asserted the importance of the involvement of local 
employers in the alignment of employment training programs with jobs. 
For example, WIA requires that a majority of local workforce 
investment boards be representatives of local businesses. GAO has also 
reported on the importance of linking the workforce investment system 
with employers to meet local labor market needs. See GAO, Workforce 
Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations between Workforce Boards and 
Employers Helped Meet Local Needs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-97] (Washington, D.C. Jan. 19, 
2012). 

[28] Labor officials told us that these time frames are based on 
grantee performance reporting requirements. 

[29] Collectively for these grantees, the number of program 
participants enrolled was 104 percent of the grantees' aggregate 
target level, and the number of program participants completing 
training was 106 percent of the grantees' aggregate target level. 

[30] This analysis of reported outcome data only includes grantees in 
two of the three Recovery-Act funded green jobs training programs 
because final outcome data were not available for any grantees of the 
third program. Specifically, all grantees that had reported final 
outcome data as of December 31, 2012, were either Pathways Out of 
Poverty grantees or Energy Training Partnership grantees. Almost all 
grantees for which final outcome data had not yet been reported were 
grant recipients of the State Energy Sector and Partnership and 
Training (SESP) grants. Employment-placement outcomes and earnings 
might vary systematically across grant programs due to differences in 
the populations targeted by the grants. For example, Pathways Out of 
Poverty grantees served unemployed individuals, high school dropouts, 
and other disadvantaged individuals within areas of high poverty. In 
contrast, under SESP grants, various target populations were given 
priority to receive training, such as workers impacted by national 
energy and environmental policy, veterans, and unemployed individuals, 
among other groups. Other individuals, such as entry-level and 
incumbent workers were also eligible to be served through the SESP 
program. 

[31] For their data reliability assessment, Labor's OIG performed a 
file review of outcome data for eight randomly selected grantees of 
the Recovery Act programs. They found that 24 percent of entered 
employment outcomes were not supported by adequate documentation, and 
that 33 percent of training-related entered employment outcomes were 
not supported by adequate documentation. Most of the documentation 
problems were found with three of the eight sampled grantees. 

[32] For a complete description of our data reliability assessment 
process, see appendix I. 

[33] GAO previously reported that UI wage records provide a fairly 
consistent national view of the performance of WIA. The report noted 
that most of the outcome data reported in a given program year 
actually reflect participants who left the program during the prior 
year, which limits their usefulness for gauging current program 
performance. GAO has not recently assessed how Labor calculates 
entered employment rates, job retention rates, or average earnings 
using these data. See: GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States and Local 
Areas Have Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could 
Do More to Help, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-657], 
(Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004). 

[34] According to Labor, their most recent analyses of Recovery Act 
green jobs training program outcomes using UI wage data are based on 
data as of December 31, 2012. The data contain employment information 
for program participants who had exited training during the one-year 
period ending March 31, 2012. The data contain job retention and 
earnings information for program participants who had exited training 
during the one-year period ending September 30, 2011. 

[35] According to Labor, their most recent analyses of the GJIF green 
jobs training program outcomes using UI wage data are based on data as 
of December 31, 2012. The data contain employment information for 
program participants who had exited training during the one-year 
period ending March 31, 2012. Also according to Labor, relevant UI 
wage data to generate job retention rates or average earnings for 
participants of the GJIF program are not yet available. 

[36] All 11 grantees we interviewed were of the opinion there is a 
national movement toward energy efficiency due to economic changes, 
whereby industries or singular businesses are attempting to be 
globally competitive partly by reducing energy costs. Ten of the 
grantees were also of the opinion that such a national movement is 
also being driven by policy changes, such as state energy goals, and 
by cultural changes, such as public concern about global warming or 
public desire for U.S. energy independence. One grantee was not of the 
opinion that such a national movement was being driven by policy or 
cultural changes. 

[37] The three surveys launched by BLS are (1) the 2010 and 2011 Green 
Goods and Services (GGS) surveys; (2) the Green Technologies and 
Practices (GTP) survey; and (3) the Occupational Employment and Wages 
in Green Goods and Services (GGS-OCC) program. 

[38] U.S. Department of Labor, Green Jobs and Health Care 
Implementation Study Final Report (Sept. 20, 2012), noted that using 
pre-existing partner relationships contributed to the efficiency of 
program implementation. Further, the report suggested that requiring 
future grant administrators to identify partners with whom they have 
had positive pre-existing relationships would likely limit the amount 
of up-front administrative time spent working with partners--
especially for grants with shorter periods of performance. 

[39] The ETP, POP, and SESP grants. The evaluation also examined the 
implementation of the Health Care Sector and other High Growth and 
Emerging Industries grant, which did not specifically target green 
jobs. 

[40] Ted Shen, Eileen Poe-Yamagata, Alan Dodkowitz, et. al., Green 
Jobs and Healthcare Implementation Study: Interim Report, ETAOP 2012-
07 (IMPAQ International: May 7, 2012). Please also see: Michael P. 
Kirsch, Carolyn Corea, Ted Shen, et. al., Green Jobs and Healthcare 
Implementation Study Final Report, ETAOP 2013-16 (IMPAQ International: 
Mar. 27, 2013). 

[41] Diane Herz, Elizabeth Laird, Angus Hague, et. al., Investing in 
Labor-Market Information (LMI): Insights from the Recovery Act LMI 
Grants Final Report, ETAOP 2013-05 (Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.: 
Jan. 15, 2013). See also: Jillian Berk, Elizabeth Laird, and Brittany 
English, Investing in Labor-Market Information (LMI): A Summary of the 
State LMI Improvement Grants Final Report, ETAOP 2013-06. (Mathematica 
Policy Research, Inc. Jan. 15, 2013). Finally, see: Elizabeth Laird, 
Brittany English, Jillian Berk, et.al., Practitioner Briefs for the 
Evaluation of the Labor Market Information (LMI) Improvement Grants, 
ETAOP 2013-17 (Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Jan. 15, 2013). 

[42] The evaluation also assesses impacts of selected grantees of 
another Recovery Act-funded training program, the Health Care Sector 
and Other High Growth and Emerging Industries grant. 

[43] Specifically, the National Governors Association, Corporation for 
a Skilled Workforce, and Collaborative Economics form the TA 
Partnership. 

[44] GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.: 
November 1999). 

[45] U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 
Core Monitoring Guide (Washington D.C.: April 2005). 

[46] Federal project officers have overall responsibility for 
monitoring the conduct and progress of grantees, including conducting 
on-site visits. Specifically, they are responsible for collaborating 
with the grantees--both in the planning and implementation of the 
program and in the evaluation of activities. 

[47] Green jobs grantees were required to submit two kinds of 
quarterly performance reports, one that aggregated performance data 
and the other that described the status of program implementation in 
narrative form. 

[48] While the risk level is primarily driven by the grantee's overall 
performance and financial performance, other factors also affect risk, 
such as the level of staff turnover at the grantee's organization, 
loss of key grantee personnel, or other staff issues, according to 
Labor officials. 

[49] ETA officials noted that the green jobs training programs were 
funded through grants and not through contracts and that this is 
statement is true across programs of federal assistance. 

[50] See GAO, Grants to State and Local Governments: An Overview of 
Funding Levels and Selected Challenges [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1016] (Washington, D.C.: September 
25, 2012),.24 and U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector 
General, Improving the Grant Management Process (February 2009). 

[51] For the purposes of this report we refer to organizational 
entities within Labor as offices. These entities could include 
agencies, administrations, bureaus, centers, and divisions. 

[52] We did not receive a completed survey for one of the efforts, but 
we did receive funding information for the effort that was requested 
in the survey in an e-mail from Labor on April 3, 2013. 

[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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, 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 
website, [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. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

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

Contact: 
Website: [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: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 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, DC 20548. 

[End of document]