This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-274 
entitled 'Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding 
Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program' which was released on 
February 11, 2002. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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 General Accounting Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

February 2002: 

Workforce Investment Act: 

Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula Would Enhance Dislocated 
Worker Program: 

GAO-02-274: 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

With Greater Flexibility, Local Workforce Areas Tailored Services to 
Meet Dislocated Worker Needs: 

WIA Flexibility Allowed States To Use Set-Aside Funds for Various 
Statewide Activities in Addition to Rapid Response: 

Funding Formula Is Problematic: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Site Visits: 

Surveys: 

Appendix II: Use of Dislocated Worker Funds for Rapid Response in 42 
States: 

Appendix III: Combined Set-Aside Funds Available for Statewide 
Activities in 52 States: 

Appendix IV: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Used for Various 
Activities: 

Appendix V: Detailed Listing of the Federal Funding Formula for 
Dislocated Workers: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Department of Labor: 

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Changes in Rapid Response under WIA for 20 States: 

Table 2: Activities Funded by 43 States That Combined Their Adult, 
Youth, and Dislocated Worker Set-Aside Funds for Statewide Activities 
in Program Year 2000: 

Table 3: Dislocated Worker Funding and Dislocation Activity for 
Selected States: 

Table 4: Local Workforce Areas Selected for Visits: 

Table 5: Program Year 2000 Dislocated Worker Allotment and Rapid 
Response Set-Aside Funds in 42 States: 

Table 6: Program Year 2000 WIA Allotments and Maximum 15 Percent 
Combined Set-Aside for Statewide Activities for 52 States: 

Table 7: Dislocated Worker Allotments for Program Years 1997 through 
2001, by State: 

Table 8: Percentage Change in Total Dislocated Worker Allotments for 
Program Years 1998 through 2001, by State: 

Table 9: States with Excess Unemployment for Program Years 1997 through 
2001: 

Table 10: Percentage Change in Long-Term Unemployment Allotments from 
Prior Year, by State: 

Table 11: Total Dislocated Worker Allotment per Unemployed Worker for 
Program Years 1997 through 2001, by State: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Number of Dislocated Workers Registered in Program Year 1999 
under JTPA and in Program Year 2000 under WIA in 14 Local Areas: 

Figure 2: Number of Dislocated Workers Enrolled in Training at 14 Local 
Areas in Program Year 1999 under JTPA and in Program Year 2000 under 
WIA: 

Figure 3: Program Year 2000 Dislocated Worker Funds Obligated for Rapid 
Response Activities in 42 States: 

Figure 4: Providers of Various Rapid Response Services: 

Figure 5: Ten States with the Largest Percentage Change in Dislocated 
Worker Allotments from Program Year 2000 to Program Year 2001: 

Figure 6: Number of States That Received Dislocated Worker Allotments 
Based on Excess Unemployment in Program Years 1997 through 2001: 

Figure 7: Two States with the Largest Percentage Change in Long-Term 
Unemployment Allotments for Program Years 2000 and 2001: 

Figure 8: Five-Year Dislocated Worker Allotments per Unemployed 
Resident for Three States with Similar Program Year 1997 Allotments: 

Figure 9: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on 
Disseminating State List of Training Providers: 

Figure 10: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Conducting 
Evaluations of Programs or Activities: 

Figure 11: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing 
Incentive Grants to Local Areas: 

Figure 12: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing 
Technical Assistance to Local Areas: 

Figure 13: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Assisting 
in the Establishment or Operation of One-Stop Delivery Systems: 

Figure 14: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Additional 
Assistance for Local Areas with a High Concentration of Eligible 
Youths: 

Figure 15: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Operating 
Fiscal and Management Accountability Information Systems: 

Figure 16: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Carrying 
Out General State-Level Administrative Activities: 

Figure 17: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing 
Capacity Building to Local Areas through Training of Staff and 
Development of Exemplary Program Activities: 

Figure 18: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Conducting 
Research and Demonstration Projects: 

Figure 19: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on 
Implementing Incumbent Worker Training: 

Figure 20: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on 
Implementing Programs Targeted to Empowerment Zones and Enterprise 
Communities: 

Figure 21: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing 
Support for the Identification of Eligible Training Providers: 

Figure 22: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on 
Implementing Programs for Displaced Homemakers: 

Figure 23: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on 
Implementing Training Programs for Nontraditional Employment Positions: 

Figure 24: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Other 
Activities: 

Abbreviations: 

JTPA: Job Training Partnership Act: 

UI: unemployment insurance: 

WIA: Workforce Investment Act: 

[End of section] 

United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

February 11, 2002: 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable James M. Jeffords: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: 
United States Senate: 

In the past, the nation’s job training system was fragmented, 
consisting of overlapping programs that did not serve job seekers or 
employers well. Then, in 1998, the U.S. Congress passed the Workforce 
Investment Act (WIA), seeking to create a system connecting employment, 
education, and training services to better match job seekers to labor 
market needs. WIA specifies separate funding sources for each of the 
act’s main client groups—adults, youths, and dislocated workers. In 
general, dislocated workers are those who have been laid off and are 
unlikely to return to their previous employment. During program year 
2000,[Footnote 1] the Congress appropriated about $950 million to 
provide services to adults, $1.2 billion to provide services to youths, 
and $1.6 billion to assist states in providing services to some of the 
3.3 million people laid off from their jobs each year. The dislocated 
worker program under WIA has taken on increased importance because the 
economy, which had entered a recession in March of 2001, took a sharper 
downturn with the loss of an estimated 415,000 jobs during the month 
following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001—the largest 
employment decrease in a single month in more than 20 years. 

When WIA replaced the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), it changed
the definition of who is targeted for services and the way that the 
services are funded and delivered. The new legislation introduced a 
greater degree of state and local flexibility that allows training and 
employment programs to be designed and managed at the local level to 
meet the unique needs of local businesses and individuals. Under WIA, 
states can set aside up to 25 percent of their dislocated worker 
allotment to provide “rapid response” to layoffs and plant closings. 
States can also set aside up to 15 percent of their dislocated worker 
allotment and combine these funds with similar funds from their adult 
and youth allotments to support a variety of other statewide 
activities. States allocate the remainder of the dislocated worker 
funds to local workforce areas. Because states did not implement many 
of WIA’s provisions until July 1, 2000, little information has been 
available on how WIA changed the way that services are provided to 
dislocated workers. To determine how states and local workforce areas 
are assisting dislocated workers under WIA, you asked us to determine: 

* How WIA has affected the services provided to dislocated workers at 
the local level; 

* How funds set aside for rapid response and other statewide activities 
are used to assist dislocated workers under WIA; 

* Whether the dislocated worker funding formula distributes funds to 
states in relation to their dislocated worker population. 

To determine how services are provided to dislocated workers, we sent 
two surveys to 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 
[Footnote 2] and visited 14 local workforce areas located in 6 states. 
One survey focused on how states used dislocated worker set-aside funds 
for rapid response activities, and the other survey focused on how 
states used combined set-aside funds from the adult, youth, and 
dislocated worker programs. We received 50 responses to each survey. We 
also visited six states (California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, and Minnesota) that provided variety in terms of program 
year 2000 funding, number of dislocated workers, and geographic 
dispersion. Within each state, we visited two local workforce areas, 
except in California where we visited four areas. We judgmentally 
selected these workforce areas to represent a range of funding amounts 
and urban and rural areas. We also interviewed, either in person or by 
telephone, state officials and representatives of the local Workforce 
Investment Boards in each local area that we visited. (App. I contains 
a more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.) We performed 
our work between December 2000 and December 2001 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

With the greater flexibility granted by WIA, local workforce areas are 
likely to offer services to dislocated workers that are tailored to 
local needs and that emphasize a quick return to employment. Some local 
workforce officials have tailored their programs to meet the specific 
needs of dislocated workers in their areas. For example, one local 
workforce area established a separate career resource center to assist 
the area’s professional workers who have been dislocated as well as 
employers seeking such applicants with experience in areas such as 
software development and biotechnology. Nine of the local workforce 
areas that we visited emphasized a quick return to work and enrolled 
fewer dislocated workers into training than were enrolled under JTPA, 
while five local areas enrolled an equal or greater number of 
dislocated workers into training than were enrolled under JTPA. 
Collectively in the 14 local workforce areas, 52 percent fewer 
dislocated workers (about 1,500 workers) received training during the 
first year under WIA than received training during the previous year 
under JTPA. In addition, while Labor has provided guidance and 
technical assistance to state and local workforce officials in 
transitioning from JTPA to WIA, guidance concerning basic program 
requirements has been limited, resulting in some confusion for state 
and local workforce officials responsible for implementing the program. 

States used the flexibility under WIA to decide how much of their set-
aside funds to spend on rapid response for dislocated workers and how 
much to spend on other statewide activities. Most of the 50 states 
answering our survey on rapid response activities said that the state 
rapid response unit provided services when layoffs and plant closings 
involved 50 or more workers and that the state generally relied on 
local workforce area officials to provide rapid response services for 
layoffs affecting fewer workers. On average, states obligated 12 
percent of their dislocated worker funds to provide rapid response 
services. Obligations varied substantially, however, ranging from those 
of Hawaii and Wyoming, which obligated less than one percent of their 
dislocated worker funds for rapid response, to those of Georgia and 
Rhode Island, which obligated the maximum 25 percent. Some states 
provided only general information about benefits and available services 
to workers during the rapid response visit, while other states provided 
workshops covering such topics as résumé writing, interviewing, and 
stress management. In addition, under WIA, states have the flexibility 
to set aside up to an additional 15 percent of their dislocated worker 
funds to support statewide activities other than rapid response, such 
as maintaining a management information system. Of the 50 states 
responding to our survey on the use of these set-aside funds, 43 states 
combined funds from the dislocated worker set-aside with funds from the 
adult and youth set-asides to support a variety of statewide activities 
and programs. For example, Virginia spent the majority of its combined 
funds to support the development and operation of a statewide 
management information system, Missouri spent the majority of its 
combined funds on establishing one-stop centers, and Iowa spent nearly 
two-thirds of its combined funds on statewide administrative 
activities. 

The dislocated worker funding formula distributes funds to states in a 
manner that does not recognize fluctuations in state dislocated worker 
populations. Workforce officials in several states expressed concern 
that the dislocated worker funding formula specified in WIA and created 
in 1982 under JTPA causes dramatic funding fluctuations not related to 
the number of dislocated workers in a state. The primary causes of 
funding volatility appear to be related to two parts of the formula: 
the number of excess unemployed (the number of unemployed individuals 
greater than 4.5 percent of the labor force) in a state and the number 
of long-term unemployed individuals (individuals who have been 
unemployed for fifteen weeks or longer) in a state. The number of 
states receiving any funding based on excess unemployment declined from 
36 states in program year 1997 to 13 states in program year 2001. Fewer 
eligible states combined with increasing funding over this period 
resulted in more funding for those states still eligible. For example, 
Mississippi’s nearly 130 percent increase in funding was largely due to 
the decrease in the number of states eligible for funding under this 
criterion. The part of the funding formula that incorporates the number 
of long-term unemployed persons is particularly problematic, because a 
state’s long-term unemployment data can vary significantly from year to 
year and is not representative of the number of dislocated workers in a 
state. For example, in program year 2000, the long-term unemployed in 
New Hampshire increased by more than 85 percent and in the following 
year declined by nearly 45 percent. The volatility created by this part 
of the formula is also quite problematic in that the long-term 
unemployed are no longer automatically eligible for the dislocated 
worker program. 

We are recommending that the secretary of Labor provide additional 
guidance to local workforce areas as they further define their policies 
and procedures and that the secretary disseminate timely information on 
best practices being developed by local areas to meet the needs of 
their dislocated workers. We are also suggesting that the Congress 
consider modifying the existing dislocated worker funding formula and 
direct the U.S. Department of Labor (Labor) to undertake a study that 
would provide options for better distributing dislocated worker funds 
to minimize funding volatility and better distribute program funds to 
states in relation to their dislocated worker population. 

Background: 

WIA specifies one funding source for each of the act’s main client 
groups—adults, youths, and dislocated workers. Labor estimated that 
approximately 927,000 dislocated workers would be served with these 
funds in program year 2000. A dislocated worker is an individual who 
(1) has been terminated or laid off, or who has received a notice of 
termination or layoff, from employment; is eligible for, or has 
exhausted entitlement to, unemployment insurance or is not eligible but 
has been employed for a sufficient duration to demonstrate attachment 
to the workforce; and is unlikely to return to previous industry or 
occupation; (2) has been terminated or laid off, or has received a 
notice of termination or layoff, from employment as a result of any 
permanent plant closure of, or substantial layoff at, a plant, 
facility, or enterprise; (3) was self employed but is unemployed as a 
result of general economic conditions in the community in which the 
individual resides or because of natural disasters; or (4) is a 
displaced homemaker.[Footnote 3] 

The secretary of Labor retains 20 percent of the dislocated worker 
funds in a national reserve account to be used for emergency grants, 
demonstrations, and technical assistance and allots the remaining funds 
to each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 
according to a specific formula. The formula, first adopted in 1982 
under the Job Training Partnership Act, was grandfathered into the 
dislocated worker program under WIA. According to the formula, of the 
total funds that Labor allots to the states, one-third is based on each 
of the following: 

* the number of unemployed in the state compared with the total number 
of unemployed in all states, 

* the number of excess unemployed in the state compared with the total 
number of excess unemployed in all states (i.e., the number of 
unemployed greater than 4.5 percent of the total civilian labor force 
in each state), and: 

* the number of individuals unemployed for 15 weeks or more in the 
state compared with the number of individuals unemployed for 15 weeks 
or more in all states. 

Upon receiving its allotment, each state can reserve no more than 25 
percent of its dislocated worker funds to provide “rapid response” 
services to workers affected by layoffs and plant closings. The funds 
set aside by the states to provide rapid response services are intended 
to help dislocated workers transition quickly to new employment. In its 
regulations, Labor divides rapid response activities into the following 
three categories: 

Required services. These include immediate and on-site contact with the 
employer experiencing layoffs as well as with employee representatives 
to assess the needs of affected workers and to provide information to 
the affected workers about unemployment insurance (UI) and other 
services. 

Optional services. These include developing programs for layoff 
aversion and incumbent worker training and for analyzing economic 
dislocation data. 

Additional assistance. This includes providing aid to local areas that 
are experiencing increased unemployment, to pay for direct services 
such as training. 

Under WIA regulations, each state is required to have a rapid response 
unit with responsibility for rapid response services. The staff in 
these units may deliver services directly by providing orientations or 
workshops for dislocated workers, or they may supervise the provision 
of such services. In the latter capacity, the state unit staff would 
assign the delivery of direct services to other personnel such as local 
area staff or private contractors. 

In addition to the dislocated worker funds that are set aside for rapid 
response, WIA allows states to set aside up to 15 percent of their 
dislocated worker allotment to support statewide activities other than 
rapid response. These may include a variety of activities that benefit 
adults, youths, and dislocated workers statewide, such as providing 
assistance in the establishment and operation of one-stop centers, 
developing or operating state or local management information systems, 
and disseminating lists of organizations that can provide training. WIA 
also permits states to combine the set-aside from the dislocated worker 
allotment with similar set-asides from their adult and youth 
allotments. After states set aside funds for rapid response and for 
other statewide activities, they allocate the remainder of the funds—at 
least 60 percent—to their local workforce areas. Approximately 600 
local workforce areas exist throughout the nation to provide services 
to dislocated workers. 

When the Congress passed WIA in 1998, the dislocated worker program was 
changed in ways that have important implications for dislocated 
workers. Unlike JTPA, WIA ensured that some job search and placement 
assistance is offered to anyone who seeks it, whether or not he or she 
is eligible for the dislocated worker program. WIA also created three 
sequential levels of service—core, intensive, and training. In order to 
move from the core level to the intensive level and from the intensive 
level to training, an individual must be unable to obtain a job that 
allows him or her to become self sufficient.[Footnote 4] 

Under WIA, the initial core services—including job search and placement 
assistance, the provision of labor market information, and preliminary 
assessment of skills and needs—are available to everyone, whether or 
not he or she is a dislocated worker. If a dislocated worker is 
determined to be unable to find a job or has a job that does not lead 
to self-sufficiency after core services, he or she can receive 
intensive services, which include comprehensive assessments, 
development of an individual employment plan, case management, and 
short-term prevocational services.[Footnote 5] A dislocated worker 
cannot receive intensive services until he or she is officially 
registered in the program. A dislocated worker who is determined to be 
unable to find a job leading to self sufficiency after intensive 
services can move on to training. At this level, a dislocated worker 
can receive occupational skills training, on-the-job training, and 
customized training.[Footnote 6] 

With Greater Flexibility, Local Workforce Areas Tailored Services to 
Meet Dislocated Worker Needs: 

With the greater flexibility granted by WIA, local workforce areas are 
likely to offer services tailored to local needs and services that 
emphasize a quick return to employment. Many of the local areas that we 
visited tailored services or designed programs to meet the needs of 
dislocated workers in their areas. Some workforce areas had also 
adopted a work-first approach to their services and required 
individuals to dedicate a set amount of time or a specific number of 
tasks to finding employment before receiving additional services, such 
as training. This meant that more individuals returned to work before 
being registered in the dislocated worker program. Thus, fewer 
dislocated workers were registered in the program and fewer were 
enrolled in training. Although WIA was intended to provide local 
workforce officials with greater flexibility, it also increased their 
need for timely and accurate information concerning the provisions of 
the legislation that they are required to implement. Labor has provided 
guidance and technical assistance to help states transition from JTPA 
to WIA. Despite these efforts, state and local officials cite an 
ongoing need for guidance concerning basic program requirements and how 
to interpret them. 

Several Local Areas Used Flexibility to Tailor Services to the Needs of 
Their Dislocated Workers: 

Several of the local areas we visited tailored their services or 
designed programs to meet the particular needs of the dislocated 
workers in their areas. For example, staff at the one-stop centers that 
we visited provided general orientation about available services to all 
interested individuals. However, one local area in California designed 
an orientation program exclusively for dislocated workers. At this two-
hour orientation, benefits and requirements specific to dislocated 
workers were described and counselors met one-on-one with interested 
workers for more in-depth needs assessments and strategy development. 
Unlike other local areas that we visited, this area had two staff 
members who were responsible for providing a range of services only to 
dislocated workers. 

Another local area in California established a separate career resource 
program to assist the area’s professional workers who have been 
dislocated and employers seeking qualified job applicants in areas such 
as software development, biotechnology, communications, and human 
resources. The program, tailored to professional and high-tech 
dislocated workers, provided the dislocated workers with their own one-
stop center where job information and computers were available. In 
addition, regular meetings were held to share information on job leads 
and career fairs as well as for moral support. This program also had 
its own Web site where participating dislocated workers could post 
their résumés. Employers looking for qualified professional or high-
tech applicants were able to search the Web site for potential 
candidates by means of key words, such as “Web design,” and obtain a 
list of all résumés containing those key words. 

A local area in Maryland that we visited was administering a 3-year $20-
million dislocated worker demonstration grant tailored to local 
employer needs. The training programs consisted of customized training 
with extensive involvement from employers in designing the programs to 
train 3,000 people for high-tech jobs in a metropolitan area covering 
three states. The program focused on entry-level information technology 
and telecommunication jobs and, to date, has established training 
programs for Web developers and cable technicians. This same local area 
also developed a career transition workshop to help dislocated workers 
cope emotionally with being laid off and plan for the future. 

A local area in Louisiana facing a major plant closing tailored a 
program to meet the needs of the 1,300 workers being laid off. Workers 
in this plant were primarily from two adjacent workforce areas. Staff 
from these two areas joined together to establish a transition center 
on site at the employer’s location. Staff and computers were available 
around the clock to advise the workers of available services; provide 
job search and placement assistance, career counseling, and vocational 
assessments; and register workers into the dislocated worker program 
under WIA. 

Some Local Areas Emphasized Job Search and Placement, Leading to Fewer 
Dislocated Worker Registrations: 

The emphasis placed by some local workforce areas on individuals 
finding a job and the availability of job search and placement 
assistance prior to enrolling in the dislocated worker program has 
reduced the number of people registering in the dislocated worker 
program in those areas. Some local officials have interpreted WIA’s 
requirements as supporting a work-first philosophy. In four of the 
local areas we visited, officials required individuals to spend a 
certain amount of time or perform a specific number of tasks related to 
finding employment before registering in the dislocated worker program 
and receiving additional services. In its March 2001 Status of WIA 
Readiness Implementation Report,[Footnote 7] Labor acknowledged that 
many local areas have adopted some form of a work-first approach to the 
delivery of services that stresses the importance of a quick entry or 
reentry into the workforce. Officials from several of the local areas 
that we visited confirmed that they viewed WIA as a work-first program 
that emphasizes returning dislocated workers to the workforce. For 
example, a counselor from a local area in Massachusetts told us that if 
a client has a marketable skill, he or she must reenter the workforce 
regardless of any desire for training for a career change. 

Unlike JTPA, which required that an individual be enrolled as a 
participant before receiving any services, WIA requires the provision 
of core services to all adults who seek them, regardless of program 
eligibility. All of the one-stop centers that we visited had a resource 
area where individuals could access labor market information, review 
job openings, create résumés, and even attend some workshops, with 
topics such as interviewing techniques, without registering for the 
dislocated worker program. Some local program officials believe that 
many individuals found employment through these core services and that 
they therefore did not go on to seek other services that would have 
required program registration. Because program participation is not 
recorded before receipt of these preliminary services, the total number 
of people who used them and found employment is not known. 
Collectively, the 14 locations that we visited registered nearly 3,000 
fewer dislocated workers during the first year of WIA than they had 
registered under JTPA during the previous program year (5,603 vs. 
8,462). Of these locations, eight registered fewer dislocated workers 
under WIA and six registered more dislocated workers (see figure 1). 

Figure 1: Number of Dislocated Workers Registered in Program Year 1999 
under JTPA and in Program Year 2000 under WIA in 14 Local Areas: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the number of 
dislocated workers registered in program year 1999 under JTPA and in 
program year 2000 under WIA in 14 local areas. The 14 local workforce 
areas are: 
Hampden County, MA; 
Bristol County, MA; 
San Francisco City/County, CA; 
North Santa Clara Valley, CA; 
Los Angeles City, CA; 
Riverside County. CA; 
Western Maryland, MD; 
Baltimore City, MD; 
Southeast Minnesota, MN; 
Hennepin County, LA; 
Lafayette Parish, LA; 
Orleans Parish, LA; 
Chicago City, IL; 
Rock Island County, IL. 

[End of figure] 

Officials from the local workforce areas that registered more 
dislocated workers under WIA than during the previous year under JTPA 
cited various reasons for the increase. For example, officials from two 
local workforce areas said that they had more dislocated worker funds 
available in program year 2000 and thus were able to provide services 
to more workers, while another official said that the local workforce 
area experienced several plant closings that resulted in more workers’ 
needing assistance. 

In Some Local Workforce Areas, Fewer Dislocated Workers Received 
Training: 

Under WIA, the 14 local workforce areas that we visited enrolled 52 
percent fewer dislocated workers in training than they had enrolled 
under JTPA. Collectively, about 1500 fewer dislocated workers were 
enrolled in training under WIA than were enrolled in training under 
JTPA (1,427 vs. 2,967). Of these areas, nine enrolled fewer dislocated 
workers and five enrolled an equal or greater number of dislocated 
workers in training under WIA (see figure 2). 

Figure 2: Number of Dislocated Workers Enrolled in Training at 14 Local 
Areas in Program Year 1999 under JTPA and in Program Year 2000 under 
WIA: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the number of 
dislocated workers enrolled in training at 14 local areas in program 
year 1999 under JTPA and in program year 2000 under WIA. The 14 local 
workforce areas are: 
Hampden County, MA; 
Bristol County, MA; 
San Francisco City/County, CA; 
North Santa Clara Valley, CA; 
Los Angeles City, CA; 
Riverside County. CA; 
Western Maryland, MD; 
Baltimore City, MD; 
Southeast Minnesota, MN; 
Hennepin County, LA; 
Lafayette Parish, LA; 
Orleans Parish, LA; 
Chicago City, IL; 
Rock Island County, IL. 

[End of figure] 

The decrease in the percentage of dislocated workers entering training 
is tied to local requirements that dislocated workers spend a certain 
amount of time receiving services or complete a certain number of tasks 
before being enrolled in training. Although the act requires 
individuals to receive sequential services, Labor has not imposed a 
required minimum period of participation in the core or intensive 
services, leaving this decision instead to the discretion of local 
workforce boards. Four local areas have set requirements for the amount 
of time or the number of tasks that a dislocated worker must complete 
at each level of service before he or she can move to the next level. 
Officials in three of these areas required dislocated workers to spend 
at least three weeks searching for a job and documenting their attempts 
at finding employment. Officials in the fourth local area required 
dislocated workers to complete a certain number of tasks, such as 
documenting 12 unsuccessful job applications or five case management 
appointments, before moving to the next level of service. 

The decrease in the percentage of dislocated workers being trained is 
also tied to the wages of the jobs they may be offered during the job 
search required before training. The receipt of future 
services—specifically, training—hinges on a dislocated worker’s ability 
to find a job leading to self-sufficiency. Only those who are unable to 
find such a job can continue to training. Among the locations we 
visited, self-sufficiency was defined differently. Because the 
definition, within certain parameters, is left to the discretion of 
state or local workforce boards, the dislocated workers who are allowed 
to continue to training vary from area to area. For example, a local 
area in Maryland defined self-sufficiency as having a job that pays 
$8.50 per hour, while a local area in Louisiana had recently increased 
its self-sufficiency standard to having a job that pays $16.39 per 
hour. Three other local areas we visited had no set standard at all. 
The lower the standard, the harder it is for a worker to qualify for 
training, because it is easier for the worker to find a job meeting the 
criterion. 

In three of the local areas that had an equal or greater number of 
dislocated workers enrolled in training under WIA than during the 
previous year under JTPA, officials said that the numbers being trained 
under WIA merely reflect the training needs of the dislocated workers 
in program year 2000. An official from a fourth local area said that 
more workers were enrolled in training in program year 2000 because 
local area officials had decided to limit the number of workers 
enrolled in training during the final year of JTPA. An official from 
the fifth local area said that the increased federal funds in program 
year 2000 allowed them to enroll more dislocated workers in training in 
that year. 

Some Local Workforce Officials Expressed Confusion about Some 
Dislocated Worker Requirements under WIA: 

State and local workforce officials, uncertain as to the act’s new 
requirements or how to interpret them in a manner consistent with that 
of Labor’s Office of Inspector General, sought specific guidance from 
Labor to assist them in implementing the act. Several officials in the 
states and local workforce areas that we visited voiced a need for more 
guidance. They said that they felt uncertain about when individuals 
should be registered into the dislocated worker program, how to 
determine when training is an appropriate service strategy, and how to 
use rapid response funds to provide additional assistance to local 
workforce areas. For example, a rapid response official in the state of 
Maryland told us that he would like additional guidance from Labor 
concerning the extent to which a state could use rapid response funds 
to provide additional assistance to local workforce areas experiencing 
layoffs. Labor’s guidance, however, does not adequately address this 
issue. In addition, WIA created a new mindset for workforce development 
professionals and makes substantial changes in how dislocated workers 
receive services. Unlike the more prescriptive dislocated worker 
program under JTPA, state and local workforce officials must 
continually interpret WIA’s requirements in order to meet the 
constantly changing needs of the workers and employers they serve. 
However, all local workforce officials were not prepared to meet this 
challenge. For example, Labor’s February 2001 final interim report on 
the early state and local progress toward WIA implementation noted that 
state and local workforce officials would like to have more guidance on 
how to interpret the requirements of the act.[Footnote 8] 

Labor has provided guidance and technical assistance to aid state and 
local workforce officials in transitioning from JTPA to WIA ranging 
from training sessions conducted by headquarters and regional office 
staff to the dissemination of guidance concerning WIA’s technical 
requirements. This guidance, in addition to information about best 
practices, is generally available via the Internet. According to some 
workforce officials, however, Labor’s guidance has generally been too 
broad for them to use when implementing WIA’s requirements[Footnote 9] 
and the information available on the Internet is often outdated. 
According to Labor officials, the guidance that it has provided to 
state and local workforce officials on a range of WIA topics has been 
intentionally nonprescriptive to allow state and local workforce 
officials to use the flexibility that the act allows to design programs 
that will accomplish state and locally established goals. 

Despite Labor’s efforts to provide state and local workforce officials 
with program guidance, misunderstandings still exist concerning some of 
WIA’s dislocated worker program requirements. In its March 2001 Status 
of WIA Readiness Implementation Report,[Footnote 10] Labor found that 
some dislocated worker program requirements were being interpreted 
incorrectly. In particular, the report, which was based on Labor’s WIA 
Readiness Review of all states and 126 local workforce areas, 
identified the need for additional guidance in the areas of program 
eligibility and registration, the sequence of services, training, the 
eligible training provider list, and the consumer report system. 

WIA Flexibility Allowed States To Use Set-Aside Funds for Various 
Statewide Activities in Addition to Rapid Response: 

States used the flexibility under WIA to decide how much of their set-
aside funds to spend on rapid response for dislocated workers and how 
much to spend on other statewide activities. All states provided some 
rapid response services, but there was variation in the amount of 
dislocated worker funds they obligated for rapid response and in the 
services they provided. Most states, however, have not changed the way 
they provide rapid response services since implementing WIA. During 
program year 2000, state set-aside obligations for rapid response 
averaged 12 percent and ranged from less than 1 percent to the maximum 
allowable 25 percent. When providing rapid response, most states 
responded primarily to layoffs and plant closings affecting at least 50 
workers and provided, at a minimum, basic informational services for 
affected workers. Many states also offered other services such as group 
workshops on job search and used a portion of their rapid response 
funds to provide additional assistance to local areas experiencing an 
increase in unemployment. In addition, as allowed by the act, most 
states combined funds from the 15-percent dislocated worker set-aside 
with set-aside funds from the adult and youth programs to support a 
variety of statewide activities and programs. Some activities, such as 
disseminating a list of eligible training providers, are required by 
the act, while others, such as conducting research and demonstration 
projects, are optional. 

Rapid Response Funding and Services Varied among States: 

States differed in how much of their dislocated worker funds they used 
for rapid response during program year 2000 and what services they 
funded with this money. Nearly a third of the 42 states[Footnote 11] 
that provided program year 2000 data in their survey responses said 
that they obligated 5 percent or less of their dislocated worker funds 
for rapid response activities.[Footnote 12] 

Overall, the amount obligated for rapid response in the 42 states 
ranged from less than 1 percent in Hawaii and Wyoming to the maximum 
allowable 25 percent in Georgia and Rhode Island (see figure 3). On 
average, these states obligated about 12 percent of their dislocated 
worker funds for rapid response activities. Appendix II shows each 
state’s dislocated worker allotment and the amount obligated for rapid 
response activities. 

Figure 3: Program Year 2000 Dislocated Worker Funds Obligated for Rapid 
Response Activities in 42 States: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Program Year 2000 Dislocated Worker Funds Obligated for Rapid Response 
Activities in 42 States: 

Percentage of Dislocated Worker Funds Obligated for Rapid Response: 
0-5.0: 12 states; 
5.1-10.0: 5 states; 
10.1-15.0: 5 states; 
15.1-20.0: 7 states; 
20.1-25.0: 8 states. 

[End of figure] 

Any rapid response funds not used in program year 2000, up to the 25-
percent ceiling, could be distributed to local areas[Footnote 13] or 
carried over to the following program year to conduct rapid response 
activities. For example, Maryland reallocated to its local workforce 
areas $1 million of the $4.2 million it had set aside for rapid 
response activities, and Louisiana carried over into the next program 
year $5.1 million of the $6.1 million it had set aside for rapid 
response. 

Rapid response services almost always include the provision of basic 
information for workers being laid off, and in many states, additional 
services such as group workshops are available. Forty-five of the 50 
states that responded to our survey had a rapid response unit 
consisting of state employees who delivered at least some direct 
services to the workers being laid off. Almost all of these state units 
contacted employers experiencing layoffs to explain available rapid 
response services and provided orientations for workers being laid off. 
State staff often delivered these services in conjunction with local 
area staff. In the six states that we visited, orientation sessions 
provided information to workers on topics such as UI benefits, services 
available at the local one-stop centers, and training opportunities. In 
many states, services in addition to orientation are also available to 
dislocated workers.[Footnote 14] These services, including group 
workshops on topics such as job search and stress management and one-on-
one meetings to discuss subjects such as financial planning, were 
provided usually by local area staff but sometimes in conjunction with 
the state unit or private contractors, such as unions (see figure 4). 

Figure 4: Providers of Various Rapid Response Services: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following 
data: 

Type of service: Contact with employer; 
State unit: 44 states; 
Local staff: 34 states; 
Private contractors: 4 states. 

Type of service: Orientation for Workers; 
State unit: 43 states; 
Local staff: 46 states; 
Private contractors: 10 states. 

Type of service: Workshops for Workers; 
State unit: 14 states; 
Local staff: 45 states; 
Private contractors: 12 states. 

Type of service: One-on-one Meetings with Workers; 
State unit: 14 states; 
Local staff: 42 states; 
Private contractors: 5 states. 

[End of figure] 

Rapid response units in some states were more involved in providing 
direct services after a layoff than were units in other states. For 
example, in Florida, the state rapid response unit provided a broader 
range of services than did the units of most other states. The Florida 
unit directly provided workshops and one-on-one meetings in addition to 
general informational services. In Maryland, as in many states, the 
state unit played a more limited role. The Maryland unit contacted 
employers experiencing layoffs and participated, along with staff from 
local one-stop centers, in orientations for the affected workers. Any 
services beyond the orientations, including workshops and one-on-one 
meetings at the work-sites, were provided exclusively by local staff. 
Louisiana had a state unit that met with employers and conducted 
orientations but provided no other direct services. To supplement the 
additional services provided by its local areas, Louisiana contracted 
with a private agency to provide workshops on topics such as résumé 
development and stress management for dislocated workers around the 
state. A state official explained that Louisiana hired this agency 
because some local areas that experience significant layoffs 
infrequently lack the experience to provide effective rapid response 
services. 

Five of the 50 states that responded to our survey delegated all 
responsibility for direct rapid response services to staff in the local 
workforce areas. For example, California had a state unit that informed 
local areas of impending layoffs but delivered no direct services. The 
state distributed a portion of its rapid response funds to the local 
areas to provide direct services. State officials believed that the 
state’s size and diversity made local flexibility more feasible than a 
single, uniform approach. Another advantage, according to a local 
official, was that referrals of workers from rapid response units to 
one-stop centers were smoother because rapid response staff were also 
local area staff. While the state stressed local flexibility, it also 
encouraged coordination among local areas that share a labor market. 
Ten local areas in northern California were collaborating to 
standardize their rapid response services, provide services jointly, 
and possibly contract with a private agency for all rapid response. New 
York was another state where local workforce area staff were generally 
responsible for delivering rapid response services. Unlike California, 
however, New York did not provide the local workforce areas with 
funding for these services. New York also had a $1 million contract 
with representatives of organized labor to provide rapid response 
assistance when their union members were affected by a layoff. 

Most states provided rapid response primarily for larger layoffs and 
plant closings affecting 50 or more workers. Responding to layoffs of 
50 or more workers appears to be related to the Worker Adjustment and 
Retraining Notification (WARN) Act of 1988, which requires companies 
with 100 or more full-time employees to notify state dislocated-worker 
staff of layoffs and plant closures generally affecting 50 or more full-
time workers. Of the 45 states using state staff to provide rapid 
response services, staff in 37 states generally provided rapid response 
services for layoffs affecting 50 or more workers, which, on average, 
represented 75 percent of the layoffs to which each state unit 
responded during program year 2000. Workers affected by dislocation 
events that are too small to trigger state unit involvement may 
nonetheless receive local rapid response services. In fact, almost all 
of the states that had a trigger for state rapid response said that 
local staff in their states may have provided rapid response services 
for layoffs and plant closings that were too small to trigger rapid 
response by the state unit. 

Illinois and Massachusetts illustrate different approaches to the use 
of a trigger for state unit response. Illinois obligated about $2.4 
million for rapid response and had a unit of state employees that was 
responsible for rapid response services statewide. These employees 
provided direct services for all layoffs and closures affecting 50 or 
more workers and responded to 170 such events during program year 
2000.[Footnote 15] Some local workforce areas provided rapid response 
services for dislocation events affecting fewer than 50 workers, but 
the state did not require them to serve these smaller events and did 
not distribute any rapid response funds to them for this purpose. On 
the other hand, Massachusetts obligated about $1.2 million for rapid 
response and had a unit of state employees that attempted to provide 
rapid response for all layoffs regardless of size. During program year 
2000, the unit responded to 158 events affecting 50 or more workers and 
149 events affecting fewer than 50 workers. 

In addition to providing direct rapid response services to workers 
affected by a layoff or plant closing, 32 states said that they used a 
portion of their rapid response set-aside funds to provide additional 
assistance to local areas that experienced an increase in unemployment 
owing to plant closings or mass layoffs. In the states for which data 
were available, more than half of the $129.6 million that these states 
set aside for rapid response was used to provide additional assistance 
to local workforce areas (see app. II). Of the 32 states responding 
that provided additional assistance, 15 states said that they provided 
additional assistance to local areas only to help them address specific 
layoffs and required that local areas spend the funds exclusively on 
workers affected by those layoffs. For example, Maryland provided 
$250,000 in additional assistance to one local workforce area that 
intended to provide training to a small number of workers laid off from 
a bottled water plant, and Louisiana provided $72,531 in additional 
assistance to a local workforce area to set up a worker transition 
center at a clothing plant that was closing. Another eight states said 
that they provided additional assistance to local areas that 
experienced a general rise in unemployment and did not tie the use of 
the funds to specific layoffs. For example, California provided $3 
million in additional assistance to a local workforce area to provide 
comprehensive services for its dislocated workers in a region with high 
job turnover. Nine other states said that they awarded funds for both 
rapid response and additional assistance during program year 2000. 

Thirty of the 50 states responding to our survey have not changed the 
way they provide rapid response since implementing WIA. The remaining 
20 states reported making changes in the way they provide rapid 
response as a result of WIA, but few of these changes were significant 
and none were required by the act or the regulations. The more 
significant changes involved giving the state unit greater 
responsibility for direct services or developing new programs to 
distribute set-aside funds to local workforce areas. For example, 
Washington state and Kansas assigned state staff to each local 
workforce area to coordinate and deliver rapid response services. Also, 
Indiana developed a program to quickly distribute additional funds 
within one or two days to local workforce areas experiencing mass 
layoffs to help them provide rapid response services. Other changes 
included increasing coordination between the state rapid response unit 
and other workforce partners, changing the focus of orientations from 
training benefits to available job search services, and shifting state 
units from one state department to another. (See table 1.) 

Table 1: Changes in Rapid Response under WIA for 20 States: 

Type of change: State unit assumed more active role; 
Number of states[A]: 4. 

Type of change: New program to distribute funds to local areas; 
Number of states[A]: 4. 

Type of change: Greater coordination with other workforce partners; 
Number of states[A]: 4. 

Type of change: Information provided in orientations changed; 
Number of states[A]: 3. 

Type of change: State unit moved to another department; 
Number of states[A]: 4. 

Type of change: Other; 
Number of states[A]: 3. 

[A] The total does not add to 20 because some states made more than one 
change in their rapid response program. 

[End of table] 

States Used Set-Aside Funds to Support a Wide Range of Services and 
Various Programs: 

During program year 2000, most states took advantage of the flexibility 
under WIA and combined dislocated worker set-aside funds with set-aside 
funds from the adult and youth programs to support a variety of 
statewide activities. Some activities, such as developing or operating 
a statewide management information system, benefited dislocated workers 
along with other types of workers such as adults and youths; other 
activities, such as career training for at-risk youths, benefited a 
specific segment of the population who were not dislocated workers. 

During program year 2000, states used their set-aside funds for 
statewide activities for various purposes. Under WIA, states can set 
aside up to 15 percent of their dislocated worker allotment to support 
some required statewide workforce investment activities. These 
activities include providing additional assistance to local areas that 
have high concentrations of eligible youths, assisting in the 
establishment and operation of one-stop center systems, disseminating a 
list of eligible providers of training services, and operating a 
management information system. In addition, the act allows states to 
use the funds for other allowable activities such as state 
administration, research and demonstration projects, and innovative 
incumbent worker training programs (i.e., programs to improve the 
skills of employed workers). Of the 50 states responding to our survey, 
43 said that they combined set-aside funds for statewide activities 
from the dislocated worker allotment with similar funds from the adult 
and youth programs. Appendix III lists each state’s allotment for their 
adult, youth, and dislocated worker programs and identifies the maximum 
amount of funds that could be set aside to support statewide 
activities. As allowed by the act, these states combined the funds and 
used them for a variety of purposes. For example, 41 states reported 
that they spent, on average, 25.7 percent of the combined set-aside 
funds on carrying out general state-level administrative activities, 
while 37 states reported spending, on average, 14.8 percent on 
assisting the establishment and operation of one-stop centers (see 
table 2). 

Table 2: Activities Funded by 43 States That Combined Their Adult, 
Youth, and Dislocated Worker Set-Aside Funds for Statewide Activities 
in Program Year 2000: 

Activities: Required activities: Assist in the establishment or 
operation of one-stop delivery systems; 
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 37; 
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 14.8. 

Activities: Required activities: Operate fiscal and management 
accountability information systems; 
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 37; 
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 13.4. 

Activities: Required activities: Provide incentive grants to local 
areas; 
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 26; 
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 10.0. 

Activities: Required activities: Provide technical assistance to local 
areas; 
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 31; 
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 6.7. 

Activities: Required activities: Conduct evaluations of programs or 
activities; 
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 33; 
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 6.0. 

Activities: Required activities: Provide additional assistance for 
local areas with a high concentration of eligible youths; 
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 24; 
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 6.0. 

Activities: Required activities: Disseminate state list of training 
providers; 
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 32; 
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 3.2. 

Activities: Other allowable activities: Carry out general state-level 
administrative activities; 
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 41; 
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 25.7. 

Activities: Other allowable activities: Implement incumbent worker 
training; 
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 17; 
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 13.2. 

Activities: Other allowable activities: Conduct research and 
demonstration projects; 
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 14; 
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 8.9. 

Activities: Other allowable activities: Implement programs for 
displaced homemakers; 
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 6; 
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 6.0. 

Activities: Other allowable activities: Provide capacity building to 
local areas through training of staff and development of exemplary 
program activities; 
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 33; 
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 5.4. 

Activities: Other allowable activities: Implement training programs for 
nontraditional employment positions; 
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 6; 
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 5.0. 

Activities: Other allowable activities: Implement programs targeted to 
empowerment zones and enterprise communities; 
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 5; 
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 4.0. 

Activities: Other allowable activities: Provide support for the 
identification of eligible training providers; 
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 19; 
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 2.4. 

Activities: Other: 
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 30; 
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 20.9. 

[A] This column includes only states that identified a specific 
percentage of funds for an activity. It does not include instances when 
states responded that an activity may have been supported by funds 
associated with a different activity and were unable to specify a 
specific percentage. 

[B] For states that reported directly funding an activity with set-
aside funds, we computed an average percentage of funds. 

[End of table] 

Several states are using the flexibility that WIA provides by spending 
the majority of their combined set-aside funds on a single activity. 
For example, Virginia spent over half of its $5.8 million combined set-
aside funds to operate a fiscal and management accountability 
information system. Missouri used over half of its $6.7 million 
combined set-aside funds to assist in the establishment and operation 
of one-stop centers. Iowa used nearly two-thirds of approximately 
$900,000 of its combined set-aside funds to carry out general state-
level administrative activities. Appendix IV shows the percentage of 
combined set-aside funds that the 43 states dedicated to each activity 
listed in table 2. 

In addition to funding the required and optional activities identified 
in the act, 30 states funded other activities. Many of these activities 
were directed to programs that benefit a specific group. For example, 
Arizona used about 4 percent of its $6.6 million combined set-aside 
funds for older worker training and support, Kentucky used about 19 
percent of its $6.4 million combined set-aside funds for statewide 
youth programs, and Montana used about 5 percent of its $2.2 million 
combined set-aside funds for adult literacy and education. 

Several of the states that we visited used the flexibility provided by 
the act to fund projects that the states determined were most in need 
of additional funding. In many instances, these projects were targeted 
to specific groups. For example, of its $63 million combined set-aside, 
California spent $6 million on a project to train veterans, $15 million 
on a project to train caregivers who work with the aging and disabled 
population, and $20 million to provide job training to targeted groups 
including at-risk pregnant teens, homeless individuals, noncustodial 
parents, and farm workers. Similarly, Illinois spent $1.3 million of 
its $13 million set-aside to help individuals obtain their high school 
general equivalency diploma over the Internet; Louisiana spent $1.5 
million of its $10 million set-aside on services for UI claimants who 
were projected to exhaust their UI benefits (the projection is known as 
UI profiling); Maryland spent $330,000 of its $6 million set-aside to 
train at-risk youths for a career in the merchant marine service. 

Funding Formula Is Problematic: 

The dislocated worker funding formula distributes funds that vary 
dramatically from year to year and that do not recognize fluctuations 
in state dislocated worker populations. State and local officials said 
that the volatility in the allotment of formula funds could limit the 
ability of some states to provide basic program services to dislocated 
workers. Without stable funding levels that are tied to the number of 
dislocated workers, states are unable to conduct the meaningful long- 
or short-term financial planning that is necessary to develop and 
deliver high-quality services for dislocated workers. Information 
obtained from Labor on state allotments between program years 1997 and 
2001 also raises concerns about the performance of the current funding 
formula (see app. V for a detailed listing of the dislocated workers 
funding formula allotments by state). Many states have experienced very 
substantial changes in funding from one year to the next over this time 
period. For example, Mississippi’s funding for program year 2001, 
increased nearly 130 percent over that for program year 2000 (from 
$13.4 million to $30.7 million), while Arkansas’s funding dropped by 
more than 40 percent (from $12.4 million to $7.1 million). Figure 5 
displays the ten states with the largest percentage changes in 
dislocated worker funding allotments between program years 2000 and 
2001. Such changes, which do not seem to be in proportion to the number 
of dislocated workers in a state, appear to corroborate concerns raised 
by state officials regarding the volatility of the current formula. 

Figure 5: Ten States with the Largest Percentage Change in Dislocated 
Worker Allotments from Program Year 2000 to Program Year 2001: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following 
approximated data: 

Ten States with the Largest Percentage Change in Dislocated Worker 
Allotments from Program Year 2000 to Program Year 2001: 

State: Mississippi; 
Percentage change: approximately 125%. 

State: Alaska; 
Percentage change: approximately 70%. 

State: Puerto Rico; 
Percentage change: approximately 55%. 

State: Delaware; 
Percentage change: approximately 30%. 

State: Minnesota; 
Percentage change: approximately 30%. 

State: Nebraska; 
Percentage change: approximately 27%. 

State: New York; 
Percentage change: approximately -30%. 

State: Idaho; 
Percentage change: approximately -40%; 

State: Arkansas; 
Percentage change: approximately -45%. 

State: Hawaii; 
Percentage change: approximately -50%. 

[End of figure] 

The dislocated worker funding formula consists of three factors, each 
of which determines one-third of the allotment given to a state. None 
of the three factors is directly related to the dislocation activity in 
a state. Two parts of this funding formula, however, contribute to the 
fluctuations in state funding of the dislocated worker program. An 
analysis of the funding formula reveals the primary cause of funding 
fluctuations to be the result of the parts of the formula that 
incorporate the number of excess unemployed (exceeding 4.5 percent of 
the total labor force) and the number of long-term unemployed. 

The number of excess unemployed displayed an extremely high degree of 
volatility during the 1997 2001 time period. For example, in program 
year 1997, 36 states had unemployment rates above 4.5 percent and 
therefore qualified for funding under this part of the formula. By 
program year 2001, only 13 states continued to receive funding under 
this part of the formula. Thus, as economic conditions improve, the 
number of states receiving funding under this part of the formula 
decreases (see figure 6). 

Figure 6: Number of States That Received Dislocated Worker Allotments 
Based on Excess Unemployment in Program Years 1997 through 2001: 

[refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Number of States That Received Dislocated Worker Allotments Based on 
Excess Unemployment in Program Years 1997 through 2001: 

Program year: 1997; 
Number of states: approximately 38. 

Program year: 1998; 
Number of states: approximately 36. 

Program year: 1999; 
Number of states: approximately 25. 

Program year: 2000; 
Number of states: approximately 18. 

Program year: 2001; 
Number of states: approximately 15. 

[End of figure] 

The decline in the number of states that received funding under this 
part of the formula, in combination with increased funding during this 
period, resulted in more funding for states that received funds under 
this part of the formula; states falling below the 4.5 percent 
threshold saw their allotments reduced substantially. In program year 
1997, $345 million was allotted among 36 states, for an average of $9.5 
million per state. By program year 2001, $424 million was allotted to 
13 states, resulting in an average allotment of $32.6 million per 
state. The nearly 130 percent increase in funding between program years 
2000 and 2001, reported for Mississippi in figure 5, was largely the 
result of a two-thirds reduction in the number of states that received 
funding under this criterion. 

This volatility in funding will likely persist as unemployment rates 
rise in response to the current economic slowdown. Rising unemployment 
in the future means that more states will again qualify for funding 
based on the excess unemployment criterion and that even as their own 
unemployment increases, the 13 states will likely experience 
substantial funding losses as more states become eligible for funding 
based on this criterion. 

In addition to the number of excess unemployed, the number of long-term 
unemployed also contributed to the fluctuations in program funding for 
individual states. For example, the allotments for long-term unemployed 
in Minnesota declined by more than 20 percent in program year 2000 and 
increased by more than 50 percent the following year. In New Hampshire, 
the pattern was the opposite: an increase of more than 85 percent was 
followed by a decline of nearly 45 percent (see figure 7). The funding 
fluctuation introduced by the number of long-term unemployed is 
particularly problematic in that the number of long-term unemployed is 
not necessarily indicative of the number of dislocated workers in a 
state, because individuals can be unemployed for 15 weeks or more and 
not have been laid off. Furthermore, the long-term unemployed are no 
longer included under the definition of a dislocated worker and are 
therefore not automatically eligible for the dislocated worker program. 

Figure 7: Two States with the Largest Percentage Change in Long-Term 
Unemployment Allotments for Program Years 2000 and 2001: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following 
data: 

Two States with the Largest Percentage Change in Long-Term Unemployment 
Allotments for Program Years 2000 and 2001: 

State: Minnesota; 
Percentage change, Program year 2000: approximately -25%; 
Percentage change, Program year 2001: approximately 55%. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Percentage change, Program year 2000: approximately 90%; 
Percentage change, Program year 2001: approximately -45%. 

[End of figure] 

The high degree of volatility in formula allotments has resulted in 
increasingly wide disparities in funding across states. In program year 
1997, both Texas and Mississippi received the same funding per 
unemployed resident. However, because Texas became ineligible for 
funding based on excess unemployment in 2001, its funding per 
unemployed resident dropped slightly, while Mississippi (one of the 
thirteen states still eligible) saw its funding jump more than three-
fold.[Footnote 16] As shown in figure 8, the program year 2001 funding 
per unemployed individual in Mississippi was three times higher than in 
Texas, even though in program year 1997, the funding per unemployed 
individual was nearly identical. (See table 11 in app. V for a complete 
listing of each state’s funding per unemployed resident for program 
years 1997 through 2001.) 

Figure 8: Five-Year Dislocated Worker Allotments per Unemployed 
Resident for Three States with Similar Program Year 1997 Allotments: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the five-year dislocated 
worker allotments per unemployed resident for three states with similar 
program year 1997 allotments. The vertical axis of the graph represents 
dollars from 0 to 500. The horizontal axis of the graph represents 
program years from 1997 through 2001. The three states represented are 
Mississippi, Montana, and Texas. 

[End of figure] 

When the Congress passed WIA in 1998, it mandated that the secretary of 
Labor undertake a study to improve the formula for the adult program. 
This mandate includes the study of the formula used to allot adult 
program funds to the states and of the formula used to allocate these 
funds within the states. The study has been completed but has not yet 
been released. The mandate did not address the formula for allocating 
dislocated worker program funds. 

Conclusions: 

WIA was passed with the intention of providing greater flexibility to 
states and local workforce areas, but more detailed guidance could 
enable local workforce areas to better use the act’s flexibility. 
Clearly, WIA intends to provide state and local areas with the 
flexibility to design programs that meet the specific needs of 
dislocated workers in their areas. Given the early stage of 
implementation, it is not surprising that some state and local 
officials remain confused about how to put into practice some of the 
act’s new requirements, such as when to register individuals in the 
dislocated worker program. Although Labor has provided broad guidance 
and technical assistance to aid the transition from JTPA to WIA, some 
workforce officials have stated that the guidance does not address 
specific implementation concerns. Efforts to design flexible programs 
that meet local needs could be enhanced if Labor addressed the concerns 
of workforce officials with specific guidance regarding the act’s 
implementation and disseminated information on best practices in a 
timely manner. 

Some states have trouble meeting the needs of their dislocated workers, 
because the amount of dislocated worker funds they receive varies 
dramatically from year to year and is not directly related to the 
states’ dislocated worker populations. The fluctuation in funding is 
caused by a three-part funding formula that incorporates factors that 
are no longer relevant to the dislocated worker program, that are 
highly volatile from year to year, and that do not reflect the number 
of dislocated workers in a state. A dislocated worker formula that 
incorporates factors more accurately approximating a state’s dislocated 
worker population would provide states with a more relevant level of 
funding for services to their dislocated workers. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the secretary of Labor provide local workforce areas 
with additional guidance on implementation issues and information on 
best practices to facilitate implementation of the dislocated worker 
program under WIA and to assist local workforce officials in using the 
greater flexibility afforded by the act to design programs and 
services. Such guidance would help the local areas further define their 
policies and procedures to meet the needs of their dislocated workers. 
We also recommend that the secretary identify strategies for 
disseminating this information in a timely manner. In particular, Labor 
should: 

* proactively identify areas that emerge as requiring additional 
guidance to help state and local areas implement the dislocated worker 
program; 

* disseminate guidance that is more responsive to the concerns of 
workforce officials responsible for implementing the act’s 
requirements, including when to register individuals into the 
dislocated worker program and how to provide additional assistance to 
local areas using rapid response funds; and: 

* disseminate timely information on best practices being developed by 
local areas to meet the needs of their dislocated workers. 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

We suggest that the Congress consider modifying the existing dislocated 
worker funding formula to minimize funding volatility and to ensure 
that dislocated worker funds are better distributed to states in 
relation to their dislocated worker population. The Congress may wish 
to direct Labor to undertake a study of the dislocated worker funding 
formula to identify factors that would enable better distribution of 
program funds to states in relation to their dislocated worker 
population. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to Labor for review and comment. 
Labor noted that the report provided an informative review of how 
states have responded to the challenges presented by the implementation 
of WIA. Labor generally agreed with our recommendations and identified 
steps that it is taking to address them. Labor commented that the 
report provided the agency’s first opportunity to review many of the 
issues regarding the use of state set-aside funds for rapid response 
and other statewide activities and said that analysis of this data will 
be used to determine areas requiring more technical assistance and 
guidance. Labor also provided technical comments that we incorporated 
where appropriate. Labor’s entire comments are reproduced in appendix 
VI. 

Regarding our recommendation that Labor proactively identify areas 
requiring additional guidance, Labor generally agreed, pointing out 
that it had organized four WIA readiness workgroups consisting of 
local, state, and federal representatives that had identified several 
potential areas for additional federal guidance. However, Labor said 
that it did not want to interfere with the flexibility that WIA 
provides to states and localities. We acknowledge Labor’s efforts and 
encourage Labor to continue to monitor emerging issues by facilitating 
discussions between local, state, and federal officials on an ongoing 
basis. 

Regarding our recommendation that Labor disseminate more guidance on 
issues such as point of registration and use of rapid response funds 
for additional assistance, Labor agreed, saying that it plans to issue 
additional guidance on establishing the point of registration and 
believes that a common point of registration is an integral component 
of a nationwide system of performance accountability. Labor also 
recognizes that registration guidance cannot be developed in isolation 
and must reflect the complexities of WIA’s performance accountability 
system. Regarding the issue of guidance on the use of rapid response 
funds for additional assistance, Labor said that a lack of guidance on 
this subject was not identified previously in its implementation 
assessments or the workgroups’. Labor noted that the information in our 
report would allow further exploration of this issue and a 
determination of whether federal guidance is necessary on this topic. 
We concur with Labor’s assessment and agree that such guidance should 
be developed with input from those officials responsible for 
implementing WIA at the local level and should be consistent with the 
accountability system established under WIA. 

Regarding our recommendation that Labor disseminate timely information 
on best practices, the agency stated that it has a contract with the 
state of Illinois to develop a Web site to display promising practices. 
We applaud Labor’s efforts in this regard, agreeing that a Web site is 
an excellent vehicle for providing information to a wide audience. We 
strongly encourage Labor to monitor the site’s implementation to ensure 
that the information posted to the Web site is kept current. 

Finally, regarding our suggestion that the Congress consider modifying 
the dislocated worker funding formula, Labor replied that it has been 
aware of the severe funding fluctuations and the difficulties such 
fluctuations present to states. It believes that resource allocation 
practices should ensure that funds are distributed in a manner that 
puts resources where they are most needed, and it acknowledged that 
because worker dislocations take place after formula funds are 
allocated, available resources do not always match need. Labor noted 
that it has initiated a review of the WIA dislocated worker funding 
formula. While we support Labor’s efforts to review this formula, we 
believe that it is imperative that such an initiative be 
congressionally mandated. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Elaine L. Chao, 
secretary of Labor; relevant congressional committees; and others who 
are interested. Copies will be made available to others upon request. 

Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any 
questions about this report. Other GAO contacts and staff 
acknowledgments are listed in appendix VII. 

Signed by: 

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

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

We were asked to determine (1) how the implementation of WIA has 
affected the services provided to dislocated workers at the local 
level, (2) how funds set aside for rapid response and other statewide 
activities are used to assist dislocated workers under WIA, and (3) 
whether the distribution of dislocated worker funds is appropriately 
targeted to states in relation to their dislocated worker population. 
To determine how services are provided to dislocated workers, we 
visited 14 local workforce areas located in 6 states and distributed 
surveys to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 
concerning the use of state set-aside funds for rapid response 
activities and for other statewide activities. We also interviewed 
officials from the U.S. Department of Labor (Labor), the National 
Alliance of Business, the National Governor’s Association, and the 
National Association of Workforce Boards. 

Site Visits: 

In selecting which states to visit, we categorized them according to 
the size of each state’s allotment for program year 2000, the number of 
mass layoff events during the previous year, and the number of workers 
affected by those events. We used three categories for the size of the 
dislocated worker allotment: large—more than $50 million; medium—$15 
million to $50 million; and small—less than $15 million. Similarly, we 
used three categories for layoff activity: large— more than 200 mass 
layoff events or more than 30,000 workers laid off; medium—75 to 200 
mass layoff events or 10,000 to 30,000 workers laid off; and 
small—fewer than 75 mass layoff events or fewer than 10,000 workers 
laid off. We obtained the funding information from Labor’s Employment 
and Training Administration and the mass layoff data from the U.S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. We then chose states from the different 
groups to provide variety in terms of funding size, dislocation 
activity, and location (see table 3). 

Table 3: Dislocated Worker Funding and Dislocation Activity for 
Selected States: 

State: California; 
DOL region: 6; 
Program year 2000 allotment: $297,723,349
Number of dislocation events[A]: 618; 
Number of affected workers[A]: 130,798. 

State: Illinois; 
DOL region: 5; 
Program year 2000 allotment: $38,725,943; 
Number of dislocation events[A]: 353; 
Number of affected workers[A]: 86,315. 

State: Louisiana; 
DOL region: 4; 
Program year 2000 allotment: $24,339,414; 
Number of dislocation events[A]: 37; 
Number of affected workers[A]: 5,549. 

State: Maryland; 
DOL region: 2; 
Program year 2000 allotment: $16,806,330; 
Number of dislocation events[A]: 13; 
Number of affected workers[A]: 1,977. 

State: Massachusetts; 
DOL region: 1; 
Program year 2000 allotment: $13,588,888; 
Number of dislocation events[A]: 119; 
Number of affected workers[A]: 27,908. 

State: Minnesota; 
DOL region: 5; 
Program year 2000 allotment: $8,023,090; 
Number of dislocation events[A]: 117; 
Number of affected workers[A]: 23,326. 

Legend: DOL = Department of Labor. 

[A] Dislocation events and separations are for the second quarter of 
1999 to the third quarter of 2000 or the equivalent time period for 
program year 1999. 

[End of table] 

Within each state, we picked two local workforce areas, except in 
California where we picked four areas. We judgmentally selected these 
workforce areas to provide a range funding sizes and types of areas— 
specifically, urban versus rural (see table 4 for a list of the 
selected local workforce areas). 

Table 4: Local Workforce Areas Selected for Visits: 

State: California: 
Local workforce area: Los Angeles City; 
City: Los Angeles; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $24,985,890. 

State: California: 
Local workforce area: North Santa Clara Valley Job Training Consortium 
(NOVA); 
City: Sunnyvale; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $1,205,672. 

State: California: 
Local workforce area: Riverside County; 
City: Riverside; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $7,247,483. 

State: California: 
Local workforce area: San Francisco City/County Consortium; 
City: San Francisco; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $2,369,840. 

State: Illinois; 
Local workforce area: City of Chicago LWA#9; 
City: Chicago; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $6,030,064. 

State: Illinois; 
Local workforce area: Rock Island County LWA#13; 
City: Rock Island; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $572,949. 

State: Louisiana; 
Local workforce area: Lafayette Parish #41; 
City: Lafayette; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $473,855. 

State: Louisiana; 
Local workforce area: Orleans Parish #12; 
City: New Orleans; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $2,128,962. 

State: Maryland; 
Local workforce area: Baltimore City; 
City: Baltimore; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $2,227,582. 

State: Maryland; 
Local workforce area: Western Maryland; 
City: Hagerstown; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $731,484. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Local workforce area: Bristol; 
City: Fall River; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $689,772. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Local workforce area: Hampden; 
City: Springfield; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $642,483. 

State: Minnesota; 
Local workforce area: Hennepin/Scott/Carver; 
City: Minneapolis; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $598,205. 

State: Minnesota; 
Local workforce area: Southeast; 
City: Rochester; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $362,989. 

[End of table] 

At each of these locations, we interviewed officials representing the 
local workforce area and local workforce board and we toured one or 
more one-stop centers. In some of the locations, we also attended 
orientation meetings and met with one-stop center staff. 

Surveys: 

We distributed two surveys to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 
and Puerto Rico. One survey was designed to obtain information on how 
states used their set-aside funds for other statewide activities, and 
the other was designed to obtain information on how states used their 
set-aside funds for rapid response. We sent the survey on other 
statewide activities to the 52 state agencies responsible for WIA 
implementation and sent the survey on rapid response to the 52 state 
units responsible for rapid response activities. As of September 27, 
2001, we had received 50 responses (96 percent) for the survey on 
statewide activities and 50 responses (96 percent) to the survey on 
rapid response. Ohio and Pennsylvania did not respond to the survey on 
other statewide activities, and Maine and New Hampshire did not respond 
to the survey on rapid response. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Use of Dislocated Worker Funds for Rapid Response in 42 
States: 

Fifty states responded to our survey on states’ rapid response 
programs. Of the 50 respondents, 42 provided program year 2000 
financial data that do not include program year 1999 carryover funds. 
Table 5 shows, for each of these 42 states, the total amount of 
dislocated worker funds set aside for rapid response activities. Funds 
obligated for rapid response activities are further broken down into 
two categories of obligations: rapid response services and additional 
assistance to local areas. 

Table 5: Program Year 2000 Dislocated Worker Allotment and Rapid 
Response Set-Aside Funds in 42 States: 

State: Alabama; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $12,337,794; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $3,040,000; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $300,000; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $2,740,000. 

State: Arkansas; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $12,375,366; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $1,317,187; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $1,317,187; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0. 

State: California; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $297,723,349; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $52,800,000; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $29,500,000; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $23,300,000. 

State: Colorado; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $8,967,371; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $511,000; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $511,000; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0. 

State: Connecticut; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $8,480,789; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $1,816,948; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $1,816,948; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0. 

State: Delaware; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $1,664,457; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $20,000; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $20,000; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $10,174,200; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $149,664; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $149,664; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0. 

State: Florida; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $41,053,379; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $8,246,621; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $1,956,686; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $6,289,935. 

State: Georgia; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $21,970,886; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $5,492,721; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $2,778,257; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $2,714,464. 

State: Hawaii; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $12,921,697; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $96,913; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $96,913; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0. 

State: Illinois; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $38,725,943; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $8,670,303; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $2,424,796; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $6,245,507. 

State: Indiana; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $10,502,473; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $2,549,700; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $796,100; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $1,753,600. 

State: Iowa; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $4,984,236; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $198,995; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $173,820; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $25,175. 

State: Kansas; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $5,772,856; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $614,286; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $345,746; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $268,540. 

State: Kentucky; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $11,423,295; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $2,750,564; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $250,564; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $2,500,000. 

State: Louisiana; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $24,339,414; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $983,791; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $949,711; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $34,080. 

State: Maryland; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $16,806,330; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $1,350,000; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $580,000; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $770,000. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $13,588,888; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $2,400,000; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $1,200,000; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $1,200,000. 

State: Michigan; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $22,130,803; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $1,821,710; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $520,000; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $1,301,710. 

State: Mississippi; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $13,390,794; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $2,008,619; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $2,008,619; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0. 

State: Nebraska; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $2,388,261; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $425,166; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $90,000; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $335,166. 

State: Nevada; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $5,076,189; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $194,595; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $194,595; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0. 

State: New Jersey; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $30,833,430; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $5,530,641; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $5,530,641; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0. 

State: New Mexico; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $20,907,033; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $873,756; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $873,756; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0. 

State: New York; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $42,360,726; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $5,775,996; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $5,775,996; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0. 

State: North Carolina; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $16,906,622; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $730,000; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $360,000; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $370,000. 

State: North Dakota; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $1,421,909; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $200,000; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $200,000; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0. 

State: Ohio; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $30,844,022; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $4,721,000; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $1,645,000; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $3,076,000. 

State: Oregon; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $30,420,464; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $1,489,544; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $589,544; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $900,000. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $38,179,716; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $5,220,309; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $2,000,000; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $3,220,309. 

State: Puerto Rico; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $108,278,443; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $1,856,854; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $856,854; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $1,000,000. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $2,924,830; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $731,208; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $731,208; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0. 

State: South Carolina; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $9,726,336; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $1,163,845; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $1,113,845; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $50,000. 

State: South Dakota; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $1,477,871; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $44,721; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $44,721; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0. 

State: Tennessee; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $14,194,628; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $3,459,711; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $738,046; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $2,721,665. 

State: Texas; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $74,756,662; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $11,760,858; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $8,211,858; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $3,549,000. 

State: Utah; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $4,343,544; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $828,513; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $340,515; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $487,998. 

State: Vermont; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $1,220,468; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $84,398; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $84,398; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0. 

State: Virginia; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $12,359,788; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $853,186; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $453,186; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $400,000. 

State: Washington; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $28,220,707; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $2,000,000; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $1,100,000; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $900,000. 

State: West Virginia; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $23,364,426; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $4,200,000; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $1,200,000; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $3,000,000. 

State: Wyoming; 
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $1,921,722; 
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $5,215; 
Obligations for rapid response services: $5,215; 
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Combined Set-Aside Funds Available for Statewide 
Activities in 52 States: 

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) permits states to set aside up to 15 
percent of the allotments for their adult, dislocated worker, and youth 
programs. In addition, the act allows the states to combine these funds 
to support a variety of statewide activities. Table 6 lists, for all 50 
states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, the program year 
2000 WIA adult, dislocated worker, and youth allotments and the maximum 
allowable combined set-aside for statewide activities. 

Table 6: Program Year 2000 WIA Allotments and Maximum 15 Percent 
Combined Set-Aside for Statewide Activities for 52 States: 

Program Year 2000 WIA Allotments: 

State: Alabama; 
Adults: $13,600,837; 
Dislocated workers: $12,337,794; 
Youth: $14,066,303; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$6,000,740. 

State: Alaska; 
Adults: $3,089,722; 
Dislocated workers: $6,719,943; 
Youth: $3,215,719; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$1,953,808. 

State: Arizona; 
Adults: $15,648,932; 
Dislocated workers: $11,542,782; 
Youth: $16,578,123; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$6,565,476. 

State: Arkansas; 
Adults: $10,068,804; 
Dislocated workers: $12,375,366; 
Youth: $10,429,385; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$4,931,033. 

State: California; 
Adults: $160,743,770; 
Dislocated workers: $297,723,349; 
Youth: $171,424,027; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$94,483,672. 

State: Colorado; 
Adults: $6,409,369; 
Dislocated workers: $8,967,371; 
Youth: $6,550,692; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$3,289,115. 

State: Connecticut; 
Adults: $7,486,306; 
Dislocated workers: $8,480,789; 
Youth: $7,700,441; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$3,550,130. 

State: Delaware; 
Adults: $2,369,063; 
Dislocated workers: $1,664,457; 
Youth: $2,457,058; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$973,587. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Adults: $4,412,566; 
Dislocated workers: $10,174,200; 
Youth: $4,528,781; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$2,867,332. 

State: Florida; 
Adults: $39,256,368; 
Dislocated workers: $41,053,379; 
Youth: $39,070,163; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$17,906,987. 

State: Georgia; 
Adults: $19,518,990; 
Dislocated workers: $21,970,886; 
Youth: $20,496,219; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$9,297,914. 

State: Hawaii; 
Adults: $6,049,854; 
Dislocated workers: $12,921,697; 
Youth: $6,045,743; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$3,752,594. 

State: Idaho; 
Adults: $3,872,663; 
Dislocated workers: $6,033,643; 
Youth: $4,095,248; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$2,100,233. 

State: Illinois; 
Adults: $38,399,632; 
Dislocated workers: $38,725,943; 
Youth: $40,030,985; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$17,573,484. 

State: Indiana; 
Adults: $10,557,597; 
Dislocated workers: $10,502,473; 
Youth: $11,014,284; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$4,811,153. 

State: Iowa; 
Adults: $3,209,170; 
Dislocated workers: $4,984,236; 
Youth: $3,259,920; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$1,717,999. 

State: Kansas; 
Adults: $3,434,681; 
Dislocated workers: $5,772,856; 
Youth: $3,440,280; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$1,897,173. 

State: Kentucky; 
Adults: $15,516,224; 
Dislocated workers: $11,423,295; 
Youth: $15,511,193; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$6,367,607. 

State: Louisiana; 
Adults: $20,662,594; 
Dislocated workers: $24,339,414; 
Youth: $21,598,829; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$9,990,126. 

State: Maine; 
Adults: $3,667,080; 
Dislocated workers: $3,854,255; 
Youth: $3,720,413; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$1,686,262. 

State: Maryland; 
Adults: $13,552,128; 
Dislocated workers: $16,806,330; 
Youth: $13,787,590; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$6,621,907. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Adults: $12,483,536; 
Dislocated workers: $13,588,888; 
Youth: $12,957,434; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$5,854,479. 

State: Michigan; 
Adults: $27,277,938; 
Dislocated workers: $22,130,803; 
Youth: $28,969,657; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$11,756,760. 

State: Minnesota; 
Adults: $7,782,432; 
Dislocated workers: $8,023,090; 
Youth: $8,048,735; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$3,578,139. 

State: Mississippi; 
Adults: $11,341,654; 
Dislocated workers: $13,390,794; 
Youth: $12,562,595; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$5,594,256. 

State: Missouri; 
Adults: $13,732,983; 
Dislocated workers: $15,326,715; 
Youth: $14,008,527; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$6,460,234. 

State: Montana; 
Adults: $4,193,064; 
Dislocated workers: $6,417,081; 
Youth: $4,149,252; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$2,213,910. 

State: Nebraska; 
Adults: $2,369,063; 
Dislocated workers: $2,388,261; 
Youth: $2,457,058; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$1,082,157. 

State: Nevada; 
Adults: $3,550,960; 
Dislocated workers: $5,076,189; 
Youth: $3,661,485; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$1,843,295. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Adults: $2,369,063; 
Dislocated workers: $2,247,442; 
Youth: $2,457,058; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$1,061,034. 

State: New Jersey; 
Adults: $23,265,426; 
Dislocated workers: $30,833,430; 
Youth: $23,699,434; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$11,669,744. 
 
State: New Mexico; 
Adults: $9,968,030; 
Dislocated workers: $20,907,033; 
Youth: $10,430,066; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$6,195,769. 

State: New York; 
Adults: $81,558,176; 
Dislocated workers: $142,360,726; 
Youth: $81,034,703; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$45,743,041. 

State: North Carolina; 
Adults: $14,198,520; 
Dislocated workers: $16,906,622; 
Youth: $14,391,704; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$6,824,527. 

State: North Dakota; 
Adults: $2,369,063; 
Dislocated workers: $1,421,909; 
Youth: $2,457,058; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$937,205. 

State: Ohio; 
Adults: $40,353,010; 
Dislocated workers: $30,844,022; 
Youth: $41,633,629; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$16,924,599. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Adults: $10,261,832; 
Dislocated workers: $8,085,953; 
Youth: $10,326,811; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$4,301,189. 

State: Oregon; 
Adults: $14,237,385; 
Dislocated workers: $30,420,464; 
Youth: $14,609,203; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$8,890,058. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Adults: $34,243,052; 
Dislocated workers: $38,179,716; 
Youth: $34,298,461; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$16,008,184. 

State: Puerto Rico; 
Adults: $52,848,829; 
Dislocated workers: $108,278,443; 
Youth: $54,369,986; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$32,324,589. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Adults: $2,478,859; 
Dislocated workers: $2,924,830; 
Youth: $2,490,640; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$1,184,149. 

State: South Carolina; 
Adults: $11,664,248; 
Dislocated workers: $9,726,336; 
Youth: $12,091,526; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$5,022,317. 

State: South Dakota; 
Adults: $2,369,063; 
Dislocated workers: $1,477,871; 
Youth: $2,457,058; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$945,599. 

State: Tennessee; 
Adults: $18,118,821; 
Dislocated workers: $14,194,628; 
Youth: $18,465,533; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$7,616,847. 

State: Texas; 
Adults: $82,451,236; 
Dislocated workers: $74,756,662; 
Youth: $88,620,250; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$36,874,222. 

State: Utah; 
Adults: $2,753,861; 
Dislocated workers: $4,343,544; 
Youth: $3,301,394; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$1,559,820. 

State: Vermont; 
Adults: $2,369,063; 
Dislocated workers: $1,220,468; 
Youth: $2,457,058; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$906,988. 

State: Virginia; 
Adults: $12,992,562; 
Dislocated workers: $12,359,788; 
Youth: $13,385,882; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$5,810,735. 

State: Washington; 
Adults: $20,455,166; 
Dislocated workers: $28,220,707; 
Youth: $21,370,932; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$10,507,021. 

State: West Virginia; 
Adults: $10,306,103; 
Dislocated workers: $23,364,426; 
Youth: $10,548,280; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$6,632,821. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Adults: $9,366,589; 
Dislocated workers: $11,506,979; 
Youth: $9,633,249; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$4,576,023. 

State: Wyoming; 
Adults: $2,369,063; 
Dislocated workers: $1,921,722; 
Youth: $2,457,058; 
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities: 
$1,012,176. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Used for Various 
Activities: 

Forty-three of the 50 states responding to our survey on the use of set-
aside funds for statewide activities indicated that they combined set-
aside funds from their adult, youth, and dislocated worker allotments, 
as allowed by the act. The following graphs identify the percentage of 
statewide set-aside funds that these states spent on various 
activities. In some instances, the upper limit (greater than 10 
percent) included a wide range. Accordingly, we have provided more 
information in the text on expenditures by states for this category. 

Figure 9: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on 
Disseminating State List of Training Providers: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Disseminating State 
List of Training Providers: 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 11 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: <1-3%: 21 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 3.1-10%: 9 
states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: >10%: 2 states. 

[End of figure] 

One state (North Dakota) spent 30 percent of its set-aside funds on 
disseminating a state list of training providers. 

Figure 10: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Conducting 
Evaluations of Programs or Activities: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Conducting Evaluations 
of Programs or Activities: 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 10 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: <1-3%: 19 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 3.1-10%: 7 
states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: >10%: 7 states. 

[End of figure] 

Five states spent between 10 percent and 18 percent of their combined 
set-aside funds on conducting evaluations of programs or activities. In 
addition, South Dakota and Arizona spent about 25 percent on this 
activity. 

Figure 11: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing 
Incentive Grants to Local Areas: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing Incentive 
Grants to Local Areas: 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 17 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: <1-3%: 3 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 3.1-10%: 12 
states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: >10%: 11 states. 

[End of figure] 

Seven states spent between 10 percent and 17 percent of their combined 
set-aside funds on providing incentive grants to local areas. In 
addition, Illinois spent over 21 percent, Wisconsin spent almost 29 
percent, and Nebraska spent about 38 percent on this activity. 

Figure 12: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing 
Technical Assistance to Local Areas: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing Technical 
Assistance to Local Areas: 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 12 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: <1-3%: 10 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 3.1-10%: 15 
states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: >10%: 6 states. 

[End of figure] 

Four states spent between 10 percent and 15 percent of their combined 
set-aside funds on providing technical assistance to local areas. In 
addition, Mississippi and South Dakota spent 25 percent on this 
activity. 

Figure 13: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Assisting 
in the Establishment or Operation of One-Stop Delivery Systems: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Assisting in the 
Establishment or Operation of One-Stop Delivery Systems: 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 6 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: <1-3%: 7 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 3.1-10%: 12 
states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: >10%: 18 states. 

[End of figure] 

Seven states spent between 11 percent and 20 percent of their combined 
set-aside funds on assisting in the establishment and operation of one-
stop center systems; another nine states spent between 22 percent and 
37 percent of their funds on this activity. In addition, Connecticut 
spent about 41 percent and Missouri spent about 52 percent. 

Figure 14: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Additional 
Assistance for Local Areas with a High Concentration of Eligible 
Youths: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Additional Assistance 
for Local Areas with a High Concentration of Eligible Youths: 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 19 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: <1-3%: 8 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 3.1-10%: 12 
states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: >10%: 4 states. 

[End of figure] 

Four states spent between 12 percent and 15 percent of their set-aside 
funds on additional assistance for local areas with a high 
concentration of eligible youths. 

Figure 15: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Operating 
Fiscal and Management Accountability Information Systems: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Operating Fiscal and 
Management Accountability Information Systems: 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 6 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: <1-3%: 9 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 3.1-10%: 13 
states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: >10%: 15 states. 

[End of figure] 

Four states spent between 10 percent and 20 percent of their set-aside 
funds on operating fiscal and management accountability information 
systems; another eight states spent from 20 percent to 30 percent on 
this activity. In addition, Arkansas spent almost 39 percent, Idaho 
spent about 47 percent, and Virginia spent about 51 percent on this 
activity. 

Figure 16: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Carrying 
Out General State-Level Administrative Activities: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Carrying Out General 
State-Level Administrative Activities: 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 2 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: <1-3%: 1 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 3.1-10%: 4 
states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: >10%: 36 states. 

[End of figure] 

Nine states spent between 10 percent and 20 percent of their combined 
set-aside funds on carrying out general state-level administrative 
activities, six states spent between 20 percent and 30 percent on this 
activity, and 18 states spent between 30 percent and 35 percent. In 
addition, Texas spent about 38 percent, Nebraska spent about 45 
percent, and Iowa spent about 64 percent of their combined set-aside 
funds on this activity. 

Figure 17: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing 
Capacity Building to Local Areas through Training of Staff and 
Development of Exemplary Program Activities: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing Capacity 
Building to Local Areas through Training of Staff and Development of 
Exemplary Program Activities: 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 10 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: <1-3%: 13 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 3.1-10%: 15 
states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: >10%: 5 states. 

[End of figure] 

Five states spent between 10 percent and 19 percent of their combined 
set-aside funds on providing capacity building to local areas through 
training of staff, development of exemplary program activities, or 
both. 

Figure 18: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Conducting 
Research and Demonstration Projects: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Conducting Research 
and Demonstration Projects: 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 29 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: <1-3%: 5 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 3.1-10%: 6 
states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: >10%: 3 states. 

[End of figure] 

Idaho spent 13 percent, Florida spent about 29 percent, and New 
Hampshire spent about 35 percent of their combined set-aside funds on 
conducting research and demonstration projects. 

Figure 19: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on 
Implementing Incumbent Worker Training: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Implementing Incumbent 
Worker Training: 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 26 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: <1-3%: 3 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 3.1-10%: 7 
states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: >10%: 7 states. 

[End of figure] 

Four states spent between 10 percent and 20 percent of their combined 
set-aside funds on implementing incumbent worker training. In addition, 
Vermont spent 30 percent, Florida spent 34 percent, and Indiana spent 
37 percent of their combined set-aside funds on this activity. 

Figure 20: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on 
Implementing Programs Targeted to Empowerment Zones and Enterprise 
Communities: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Implementing Programs 
Targeted to Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities: 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 37 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: <1-3%: 2 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 3.1-10%: 4 
states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: >10%: 0 states. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 21: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing 
Support for the Identification of Eligible Training Providers: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing Support for 
the Identification of Eligible Training Providers: 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 23 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: <1-3%: 13 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 3.1-10%: 7 
states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: >10%: 0 states. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 22: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on 
Implementing Programs for Displaced Homemakers: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Implementing Programs 
for Displaced Homemakers: 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 37 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: <1-3%: 2 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 3.1-10%: 3 
states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: >10%: 1 states. 

[End of figure] 

Virginia spent 19 percent of its set-aside funds on implementing 
programs for displaced homemakers. 

Figure 23: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on 
Implementing Training Programs for Nontraditional Employment Positions: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Implementing Training 
Programs for Nontraditional Employment Positions: 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 37 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: <1-3%: 3 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 3.1-10%: 2 
states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: >10%: 1 states. 

[End of figure] 

Vermont spent about 11 percent of its set-aside funds on implementing 
training programs for nontraditional employment positions. 

Figure 24: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Other 
Activities: 

[Refer to PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Other Activities: 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 13 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: <1-3%: 3 states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 3.1-10%: 8 
states; 
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: >10%: 19 states. 

[End of figure] 

Seven states spent between 10 percent and 18 percent of their set-aside 
funds on other activities, six states spent between 19 percent and 31 
percent, and two states spent between 31 percent and 40 percent. In 
addition, Alabama and West Virginia both spent about 47 percent of 
their set-aside funds on these activities, while Nevada spent about 73 
percent and California spent about 76 percent. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Detailed Listing of the Federal Funding Formula for 
Dislocated Workers: 

Appendix V presents detailed results of our analysis of the federal 
funding formula for dislocated workers and its impact on 50 states, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (see tables 7 through 11). We 
obtained information for the analysis of the funding formula and the 
state dislocated worker allotments between program years 1997 and 2001 
from the Department of Labor. 

Table 7: Dislocated Worker Allotments for Program Years 1997 through 
2001, by State: 

State: Alabama; 
Program year 1997: $14,887,940; 
Program year 1998: $10,405,271; 
Program year 1999: $11,310,449; 
Program year 2000: $12,337,794; 
Program year 2001: $15,068,548. 

State: Alaska; 
Program year 1997: $3,931,646; 
Program year 1998: $5,569,805; 
Program year 1999: $6,053,763; 
Program year 2000: $6,719,943; 
Program year 2001: $11,395,001. 

State: Arizona; 
Program year 1997: $10,790,780; 
Program year 1998: $13,481,176; 
Program year 1999: $9,383,103; 
Program year 2000: $11,542,782; 
Program year 2001: $12,879,316. 

State: Arkansas; 
Program year 1997: $5,898,001; 
Program year 1998: $9,331,256; 
Program year 1999: $10,872,546; 
Program year 2000: $12,375,366; 
Program year 2001: $7,103,656. 

State: California; 
Program year 1997: $226,611,355; 
Program year 1998: $228,452,063; 
Program year 1999: $252,751,353; 
Program year 2000: $297,723,349; 
Program year 2001: $273,391,437. 

State: Colorado; 
Program year 1997: $6,569,865; 
Program year 1998: $6,965,327; 
Program year 1999: $6,515,135; 
Program year 2000: $8,967,371; 
Program year 2001: $8,255,862. 

State: Connecticut; 
Program year 1997: $12,269,326; 
Program year 1998: $13,972,394; 
Program year 1999: $10,137,244; 
Program year 2000: $8,480,789; 
Program year 2001: $7,406,982. 

State: Delaware; 
Program year 1997: $1,966,568; 
Program year 1998: $1,962,967; 
Program year 1999: $1,730,577; 
Program year 2000: $1,664,457; 
Program year 2001: $2,184,617. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Program year 1997: $5,631,401; 
Program year 1998: $5,710,918; 
Program year 1999: $9,278,408; 
Program year 2000: $10,174,200; 
Program year 2001: $8,433,959. 

State: Florida; 
Program year 1997: $47,487,185; 
Program year 1998: $43,088,420; 
Program year 1999: $37,376,186; 
Program year 2000: $41,053,379; 
Program year 2001: $39,311,417. 

State: Georgia; 
Program year 1997: $15,447,527; 
Program year 1998: $16,437,304; 
Program year 1999: $17,327,420; 
Program year 2000: $21,970,886; 
Program year 2001: $20,930,127. 

State: Hawaii; 
Program year 1997: $5,392,433; 
Program year 1998: $7,124,058; 
Program year 1999: $9,203,634; 
Program year 2000: $12,921,697; 
Program year 2001: $6,477,632. 

State: Idaho; 
Program year 1997: $3,203,461; 
Program year 1998: $4,218,044; 
Program year 1999: $5,142,284; 
Program year 2000: $6,033,643; 
Program year 2001: $3,898,217. 

State: Illinois; 
Program year 1997: $41,727,268; 
Program year 1998: $38,162,269; 
Program year 1999: $33,944,834; 
Program year 2000: $38,725,943; 
Program year 2001: $41,575,303. 

State: Indiana; 
Program year 1997: $11,375,233; 
Program year 1998: $10,887,945; 
Program year 1999: $9,999,244; 
Program year 2000: $10,502,473; 
Program year 2001: $10,682,428. 

State: Iowa; 
Program year 1997: $4,209,472; 
Program year 1998: $5,193,070; 
Program year 1999: $4,603,653; 
Program year 2000: $4,984,236; 
Program year 2001: $5,437,368. 

State: Kansas; 
Program year 1997: $4,690,124; 
Program year 1998: $5,046,917; 
Program year 1999: $5,107,811; 
Program year 2000: $5,772,856; 
Program year 2001: $5,502,565. 

State: Kentucky; 
Program year 1997: $11,913,534; 
Program year 1998: $16,465,202; 
Program year 1999: $10,071,794; 
Program year 2000: $11,423,295; 
Program year 2001: $11,735,435. 

State: Louisiana; 
Program year 1997: $22,984,811; 
Program year 1998: $24,467,573; 
Program year 1999: $25,508,779; 
Program year 2000: $24,339,414; 
Program year 2001: $23,158,418. 

State: Maine; 
Program year 1997: $4,643,804; 
Program year 1998: $3,812,342; 
Program year 1999: $4,094,611; 
Program year 2000: $3,854,255; 
Program year 2001: $3,214,945. 

State: Maryland; 
Program year 1997: $16,322,396; 
Program year 1998: $14,535,456; 
Program year 1999: $19,792,477; 
Program year 2000: $16,806,330; 
Program year 2001: $17,559,765. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Program year 1997: $18,455,865; 
Program year 1998: $14,048,429; 
Program year 1999: $13,467,578; 
Program year 2000: $13,588,888; 
Program year 2001: $15,134,353. 

State: Michigan; 
Program year 1997: $24,798,043; 
Program year 1998: $20,753,875; 
Program year 1999: $21,366,758; 
Program year 2000: $22,130,803; 
Program year 2001: $21,932,071. 

State: Minnesota; 
Program year 1997: $8,025,182; 
Program year 1998: $8,655,629; 
Program year 1999: $8,482,964; 
Program year 2000: $8,023,090; 
Program year 2001: $10,473,235. 

State: Mississippi; 
Program year 1997: $10,812,972; 
Program year 1998: $11,851,804; 
Program year 1999: $14,148,987; 
Program year 2000: $13,390,794; 
Program year 2001: $30,701,477. 

State: Missouri; 
Program year 1997: $10,875,026; 
Program year 1998: $12,288,831; 
Program year 1999: $13,857,280; 
Program year 2000: $15,326,715; 
Program year 2001: $12,374,521. 

State: Montana; 
Program year 1997: $3,531,457; 
Program year 1998: $2,892,798; 
Program year 1999: $4,879,006; 
Program year 2000: $6,417,081; 
Program year 2001: $7,084,638. 

State: Nebraska; 
Program year 1997: $1,594,122; 
Program year 1998: $1,965,472; 
Program year 1999: $1,997,095; 
Program year 2000: $2,388,261; 
Program year 2001: $2,997,707. 

State: Nevada; 
Program year 1997: $4,632,379; 
Program year 1998: $4,648,561; 
Program year 1999: $3,910,433; 
Program year 2000: $5,076,189; 
Program year 2001: $5,334,057. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Program year 1997: $2,260,095; 
Program year 1998: $2,272,311; 
Program year 1999: $1,583,448; 
Program year 2000: $2,247,442; 
Program year 2001: $1,877,882. 

State: New Jersey; 
Program year 1997: $44,679,005; 
Program year 1998: $43,261,829; 
Program year 1999: $36,304,389; 
Program year 2000: $30,833,430; 
Program year 2001: $30,498,439. 

State: New Mexico; 
Program year 1997: $8,607,771; 
Program year 1998: $12,173,813; 
Program year 1999: $14,447,813; 
Program year 2000: $20,907,033; 
Program year 2001: $21,923,521. 

State: New York; 
Program year 1997: $91,917,963; 
Program year 1998: $113,707,688; 
Program year 1999: $141,469,827; 
Program year 2000: $142,360,726; 
Program year 2001: $105,559,534. 

State: North Carolina; 
Program year 1997: $13,056,615; 
Program year 1998: $13,313,849; 
Program year 1999: $14,354,831; 
Program year 2000: $16,906,622; 
Program year 2001: $16,959,265. 

State: North Dakota; 
Program year 1997: $11,735; 
Program year 1998: $812,799; 
Program year 1999: $791,223; 
Program year 2000: $1,421,909; 
Program year 2001: $1,279,725. 

State: Ohio; 
Program year 1997: $30,158,145; 
Program year 1998: $30,143,462; 
Program year 1999: $28,150,483; 
Program year 2000: $30,844,022; 
Program year 2001: $34,309,127. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Program year 1997: $6,134,591; 
Program year 1998: $5,531,341; 
Program year 1999: $6,881,200; 
Program year 2000: $8,085,953; 
Program year 2001: $6,561,865. 

State: Oregon; 
Program year 1997: $8,292,745; 
Program year 1998: $15,100,295; 
Program year 1999: $17,668,368; 
Program year 2000: $30,420,464; 
Program year 2001: $28,811,913. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Program year 1997: $47,736,539; 
Program year 1998: $45,002,996; 
Program year 1999: $36,555,932; 
Program year 2000: $38,179,716; 
Program year 2001: $38,706,830. 

State: Puerto Rico; 
Program year 1997: $39,306,758; 
Program year 1998: $49,534,488; 
Program year 1999: $82,314,462; 
Program year 2000: $108,278,443; 
Program year 2001: $166,101,676. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Program year 1997: $4,450,933; 
Program year 1998: $3,588,822; 
Program year 1999: $3,851,636; 
Program year 2000: $2,924,830; 
Program year 2001: $2,885,714. 

State: South Carolina; 
Program year 1997: $13,502,936; 
Program year 1998: $16,723,308; 
Program year 1999: $8,163,435; 
Program year 2000: $9,726,336; 
Program year 2001: $11,936,257. 

State: South Dakota; 
Program year 1997: $815,418; 
Program year 1998: $890,691; 
Program year 1999: $986,630; 
Program year 2000: $1,477,871; 
Program year 2001: $1,283,809. 

State: Tennessee; 
Program year 1997: $15,412,716; 
Program year 1998: $18,581,291; 
Program year 1999: $14,120,459; 
Program year 2000: $14,194,628; 
Program year 2001: $12,771,543. 

State: Texas; 
Program year 1997: $81,382,699; 
Program year 1998: $81,009,852; 
Program year 1999: $74,819,227; 
Program year 2000: $74,756,662; 
Program year 2001: $63,747,179. 

State: Utah; 
Program year 1997: $2,503,785; 
Program year 1998: $2,446,846; 
Program year 1999: $3,229,390; 
Program year 2000: $4,343,544; 
Program year 2001: $4,430,131. 

State: Vermont; 
Program year 1997: $1,060,691; 
Program year 1998: $1,298,100; 
Program year 1999: $1,391,491; 
Program year 2000: $1,220,468; 
Program year 2001: $1,240,882. 

State: Virginia; 
Program year 1997: $13,354,807; 
Program year 1998: $14,527,059; 
Program year 1999: $13,872,204; 
Program year 2000: $12,359,788; 
Program year 2001: $12,424,713. 

State: Washington; 
Program year 1997: $26,317,878; 
Program year 1998: $24,728,657; 
Program year 1999: $13,905,356; 
Program year 2000: $28,220,707; 
Program year 2001: $27,119,437. 

State: West Virginia; 
Program year 1997: $12,065,944; 
Program year 1998: $13,035,793; 
Program year 1999: $16,082,147; 
Program year 2000: $23,364,426; 
Program year 2001: $25,423,973. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Program year 1997: $8,791,150; 
Program year 1998: $9,028,070; 
Program year 1999: $9,944,587; 
Program year 2000: $11,506,979; 
Program year 2001: $12,880,353. 

State: Wyoming; 
Program year 1997: $999,905; 
Program year 1998: $1,299,464; 
Program year 1999: $1,204,056; 
Program year 2000: $1,921,722; 
Program year 2001: $1,663,175. 

State: Total; 
Program year 1997: $1,034,400,000; 
Program year 1998: $1,080,408,000; 
Program year 1999: $1,124,408,000; 
Program year 2000: $1,271,220,000; 
Program year 2001: $1,272,032,000. 

[End of table] 

Table 8: Percentage Change in Total Dislocated Worker Allotments for 
Program Years 1998 through 2001, by State: 

State: Alabama; 
Program year 1998: -30%; 
Program year 1999: 9%; 
Program year 2000: 9%; 
Program year 2001: 22%. 

State: Alaska; 
Program year 1998: 42%; 
Program year 1999: 9%; 
Program year 2000: 11%; 
Program year 2001: 70%. 

State: Arizona; 
Program year 1998: 25%; 
Program year 1999: -30%; 
Program year 2000: 23%; 
Program year 2001: 12%. 

State: Arkansas; 
Program year 1998: 58%; 
Program year 1999: 17%; 
Program year 2000: 14%; 
Program year 2001: -43%. 

State: California; 
Program year 1998: 1%; 
Program year 1999: 11%; 
Program year 2000: 18%; 
Program year 2001: -8%. 

State: Colorado; 
Program year 1998: 6%; 
Program year 1999: -6%; 
Program year 2000: 38%; 
Program year 2001: -8%. 

State: Connecticut; 
Program year 1998: 14%; 
Program year 1999: -27%; 
Program year 2000: -16%; 
Program year 2001: -13%. 

State: Delaware; 
Program year 1998: 0%; 
Program year 1999: -12%; 
Program year 2000: -4%; 
Program year 2001: 31%. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Program year 1998: 1%; 
Program year 1999: 62%; 
Program year 2000: 10%; 
Program year 2001: -17%. 

State: Florida; 
Program year 1998: -9%; 
Program year 1999: -13%; 
Program year 2000: 10%; 
Program year 2001: -4%. 

State: Georgia; 
Program year 1998: 6%; 
Program year 1999: 5%; 
Program year 2000: 27%; 
Program year 2001: -5%. 

State: Hawaii; 
Program year 1998: 32%; 
Program year 1999: 29%; 
Program year 2000: 40%; 
Program year 2001: -50%. 

State: Idaho; 
Program year 1998: 32%; 
Program year 1999: 22%; 
Program year 2000: 17%; 
Program year 2001: -35%. 

State: Illinois; 
Program year 1998: -9%; 
Program year 1999: -11%; 
Program year 2000: 14%; 
Program year 2001: 7%. 

State: Indiana; 
Program year 1998: -4%; 
Program year 1999: -8%; 
Program year 2000: 5%; 
Program year 2001: 2%. 

State: Iowa; 
Program year 1998: 23%; 
Program year 1999: -11%; 
Program year 2000: 8%; 
Program year 2001: 9%. 

State: Kansas; 
Program year 1998: 8%; 
Program year 1999: 1%; 
Program year 2000: 13%; 
Program year 2001: -5%. 

State: Kentucky; 
Program year 1998: 39%; 
Program year 1999: -39%; 
Program year 2000: 13%; 
Program year 2001: 3%. 

State: Louisiana; 
Program year 1998: 6%; 
Program year 1999: 4%; 
Program year 2000: -5%; 
Program year 2001: -5%. 

State: Maine; 
Program year 1998: -18%; 
Program year 1999: 7%; 
Program year 2000: -6%; 
Program year 2001: -17%. 

State: Maryland; 
Program year 1998: -11%; 
Program year 1999: 36%; 
Program year 2000: -15%; 
Program year 2001: 4%. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Program year 1998: -24%; 
Program year 1999: -4%; 
Program year 2000: 1%; 
Program year 2001: 11%. 

State: Michigan; 
Program year 1998: -16%; 
Program year 1999: 3%; 
Program year 2000: 4%; 
Program year 2001: -1%. 

State: Minnesota; 
Program year 1998: 8%; 
Program year 1999: -2%; 
Program year 2000: -5%; 
Program year 2001: 31%. 

State: Mississippi; 
Program year 1998: 10%; 
Program year 1999: 19%; 
Program year 2000: -5%; 
Program year 2001: 129%. 

State: Missouri; 
Program year 1998: 13%; 
Program year 1999: 13%; 
Program year 2000: 11%; 
Program year 2001: -19%. 

State: Montana; 
Program year 1998: -18%; 
Program year 1999: 69%; 
Program year 2000: 32%; 
Program year 2001: 10%. 

State: Nebraska; 
Program year 1998: 23%; 
Program year 1999: 2%; 
Program year 2000: 20%; 
Program year 2001: 26%. 

State: Nevada; 
Program year 1998: 0%; 
Program year 1999: -16%; 
Program year 2000: 30%; 
Program year 2001: 5%. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Program year 1998: 1%; 
Program year 1999: -30%; 
Program year 2000: 42%; 
Program year 2001: -16%. 

State: New Jersey; 
Program year 1998: -3%; 
Program year 1999: -16%; 
Program year 2000: -15%; 
Program year 2001: -1%. 

State: New Mexico; 
Program year 1998: 41%; 
Program year 1999: 19%; 
Program year 2000: 45%; 
Program year 2001: 5%. 

State: New York; 
Program year 1998: 24%; 
Program year 1999: 24%; 
Program year 2000: 1%; 
Program year 2001: -26%. 

State: North Carolina; 
Program year 1998: 2%; 
Program year 1999: 8%; 
Program year 2000: 18%; 
Program year 2001: 0%. 

State: North Dakota; 
Program year 1998: -11%; 
Program year 1999: -3%; 
Program year 2000: 80%; 
Program year 2001: -10%. 

State: Ohio; 
Program year 1998: 0%; 
Program year 1999: -7%; 
Program year 2000: 10%; 
Program year 2001: 11%. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Program year 1998: -10%; 
Program year 1999: 24%; 
Program year 2000: 18%; 
Program year 2001: -19%. 

State: Oregon; 
Program year 1998: 82%; 
Program year 1999: 17%; 
Program year 2000: 72%; 
Program year 2001: -5%. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Program year 1998: -6%; 
Program year 1999: -19%; 
Program year 2000: 4%; 
Program year 2001: 1%. 

State: Puerto Rico; 
Program year 1998: 26%; 
Program year 1999: 66%; 
Program year 2000: 32%; 
Program year 2001: 53%. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Program year 1998: -19%; 
Program year 1999: 7%; 
Program year 2000: -24%; 
Program year 2001: -1%. 

State: South Carolina; 
Program year 1998: 24%; 
Program year 1999: -51%; 
Program year 2000: 19%; 
Program year 2001: 23%. 

State: South Dakota; 
Program year 1998: 9%; 
Program year 1999: 11%; 
Program year 2000: 50%; 
Program year 2001: -13%. 

State: Tennessee; 
Program year 1998: 21%; 
Program year 1999: -24%; 
Program year 2000: 1%; 
Program year 2001: -10%. 

State: Texas; 
Program year 1998: 0%; 
Program year 1999: -8%; 
Program year 2000: 0%; 
Program year 2001: -15%. 

State: Utah; 
Program year 1998: -2%; 
Program year 1999: 32%; 
Program year 2000: 35%; 
Program year 2001: 2%. 

State: Vermont; 
Program year 1998: 22%; 
Program year 1999: 7%; 
Program year 2000: -12%; 
Program year 2001: 2%. 

State: Virginia; 
Program year 1998: 9%; 
Program year 1999: -5%; 
Program year 2000: -11%; 
Program year 2001: 1%. 

State: Washington; 
Program year 1998: -6%; 
Program year 1999: -44%; 
Program year 2000: 103%; 
Program year 2001: -4%. 

State: West Virginia; 
Program year 1998: 8%; 
Program year 1999: 23%; 
Program year 2000: 45%; 
Program year 2001: 9%. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Program year 1998: 3%; 
Program year 1999: 10%; 
Program year 2000: 16%; 
Program year 2001: 12%. 

State: Wyoming; 
Program year 1998: 30%; 
Program year 1999: -7%; 
Program year 2000: 60%; 
Program year 2001: -13%. 

State: US + Puerto Rico; 
Program year 1998: 4%; 
Program year 1999: 4%; 
Program year 2000: 13%; 
Program year 2001: 0%. 

[End of table] 

Table 9: States with Excess Unemployment for Program Years 1997 through 
2001: 

State: Alabama; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Alaska; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Check]. 

State: Arizona; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Arkansas; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: California; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Check]. 

State: Colorado; 
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Connecticut; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Delaware; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Check]. 

State: Florida; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Georgia; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Hawaii; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Check]. 

State: Idaho; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Illinois; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Indiana; 
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Iowa; 
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Kansas; 
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Kentucky; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Louisiana; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Check]. 

State: Maine; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Maryland; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Michigan; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Minnesota; 
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Mississippi; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Check]. 

State: Missouri; 
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Montana; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Check]. 

State: Nebraska; 
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Nevada; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: New Jersey; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: New Mexico; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Check]. 

State: New York; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Check]. 

State: North Carolina; 
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: North Dakota; 
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Ohio; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Oregon; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Check]. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Puerto Rico; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Check]. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: South Carolina; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: South Dakota; 
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Tennessee; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Texas; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Utah; 
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Vermont; 
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Virginia; 
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Washington; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Check]. 

State: West Virginia; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Check]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Check]. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Empty]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: Wyoming; 
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check]; 
Program year 1999: [Empty]; 
Program year 2000: [Check]; 
Program year 2001: [Empty]. 

State: State Count; 
Program year 1997: 36;
Program year 1998: 34; 
Program year 1999: 23; 
Program year 2000: 18; 
Program year 2001: 13. 

[End of table] 

Table 10: Percentage Change in Long-Term Unemployment Allotments from 
Prior Year, by State: 

State: Alabama; 
Program year 1997: -20%; 
Program year 1998: 32%; 
Program year 1999: -4%; 
Program year 2000: 35%. 

State: Alaska; 
Program year 1997: 49%; 
Program year 1998: 33%; 
Program year 1999: -29%; 
Program year 2000: 11%. 

State: Arizona; 
Program year 1997: 48%; 
Program year 1998: -20%; 
Program year 1999: 16%; 
Program year 2000: -32%. 

State: Arkansas; 
Program year 1997: 60%; 
Program year 1998: 17%; 
Program year 1999: 41%; 
Program year 2000: -8%. 

State: California; 
Program year 1997: 3%; 
Program year 1998: -6%; 
Program year 1999: 18%; 
Program year 2000: -8%. 

State: Colorado; 
Program year 1997: 18%; 
Program year 1998: -24%; 
Program year 1999: 74%; 
Program year 2000: -10%. 

State: Connecticut; 
Program year 1997: -4%; 
Program year 1998: 10%; 
Program year 1999: -21%; 
Program year 2000: -12%. 

State: Delaware; 
Program year 1997: 7%; 
Program year 1998: -3%; 
Program year 1999: -15%; 
Program year 2000: 48%. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Program year 1997: -2%; 
Program year 1998: 7%; 
Program year 1999: 29%; 
Program year 2000: -22%. 

State: Florida; 
Program year 1997: -1%; 
Program year 1998: 1%; 
Program year 1999: 21%; 
Program year 2000: -9%. 

State: Georgia; 
Program year 1997: 9%; 
Program year 1998: 12%; 
Program year 1999: 38%; 
Program year 2000: -10%. 

State: Hawaii; 
Program year 1997: 15%; 
Program year 1998: 25%; 
Program year 1999: 32%; 
Program year 2000: -5%. 

State: Idaho; 
Program year 1997: 42%; 
Program year 1998: 2%; 
Program year 1999: 21%; 
Program year 2000: 11%. 

State: Illinois; 
Program year 1997: 1%; 
Program year 1998: 6%; 
Program year 1999: 16%; 
Program year 2000: 7%. 

State: Indiana; 
Program year 1997: 10%; 
Program year 1998: -22%; 
Program year 1999: 09%; 
Program year 2000: -22%. 

State: Iowa; 
Program year 1997: 42%; 
Program year 1998: -12%; 
Program year 1999: -6%; 
Program year 2000: 39%. 

State: Kansas; 
Program year 1997: -1%; 
Program year 1998: 0%; 
Program year 1999: 6%; 
Program year 2000: -14%. 

State: Kentucky; 
Program year 1997: 17%; 
Program year 1998: -7%; 
Program year 1999: 11%; 
Program year 2000: 6%. 

State: Louisiana; 
Program year 1997: 4%; 
Program year 1998: -5%; 
Program year 1999: -1%; 
Program year 2000: 15%. 

State: Maine; 
Program year 1997: -2%; 
Program year 1998: 17%; 
Program year 1999: 3%; 
Program year 2000: -31%. 

State: Maryland; 
Program year 1997: -6%; 
Program year 1998: 36%; 
Program year 1999: 5%; 
Program year 2000: 14%. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Program year 1997: -16%; 
Program year 1998: -8%; 
Program year 1999: -3%; 
Program year 2000: 24%. 

State: Michigan; 
Program year 1997: -8%; 
Program year 1998: 2%; 
Program year 1999: -12%; 
Program year 2000: 2%. 

State: Minnesota; 
Program year 1997: 11%; 
Program year 1998: 8%; 
Program year 1999: -23%; 
Program year 2000: 54%. 

State: Mississippi; 
Program year 1997: 46%; 
Program year 1998: 17%; 
Program year 1999: 9%; 
Program year 2000: -11%. 

State: Missouri; 
Program year 1997: 9%; 
Program year 1998: 14%; 
Program year 1999: 27%; 
Program year 2000: -25%. 

State: Montana; 
Program year 1997: -7%; 
Program year 1998: 17%; 
Program year 1999: 1%; 
Program year 2000: 33%. 

State: Nebraska; 
Program year 1997: 78%; 
Program year 1998: 17%; 
Program year 1999: -15%; 
Program year 2000: 48%. 

State: Nevada; 
Program year 1997: 16%; 
Program year 1998: -12%; 
Program year 1999: 57%; 
Program year 2000: 0%. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Program year 1997: 7%; 
Program year 1998: -56%; 
Program year 1999: 89%; 
Program year 2000: -44%. 

State: New Jersey; 
Program year 1997: 5%; 
Program year 1998: -14%; 
Program year 1999: 10%; 
Program year 2000: 18%. 

State: New Mexico; 
Program year 1997: 56%; 
Program year 1998: -14%; 
Program year 1999: 52%; 
Program year 2000: -26%. 

State: New York; 
Program year 1997: 5%; 
Program year 1998: 34%; 
Program year 1999: 7%; 
Program year 2000: -2%. 

State: North Carolina; 
Program year 1997: 7%; 
Program year 1998: 11%; 
Program year 1999: 34%; 
Program year 2000: -15%. 

State: North Dakota; 
Program year 1997: -29%; 
Program year 1998: 17%; 
Program year 1999: 112%; 
Program year 2000: -26%. 

State: Ohio; 
Program year 1997: 7%; 
Program year 1998: 9%; 
Program year 1999: 2%; 
Program year 2000: 19%. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Program year 1997: -15%; 
Program year 1998: 31%; 
Program year 1999: 10%; 
Program year 2000: -21%. 

State: Oregon; 
Program year 1997: 97%; 
Program year 1998: 7%; 
Program year 1999: 10%; 
Program year 2000: -21%. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Program year 1997: 2%; 
Program year 1998: -4%; 
Program year 1999: 18%; 
Program year 2000: 3%. 

State: Puerto Rico; 
Program year 1997: 7%; 
Program year 1998: 22%; 
Program year 1999: 47%; 
Program year 2000: 3%. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Program year 1997: -34%; 
Program year 1998: 31%; 
Program year 1999: -6%; 
Program year 2000: -7%. 

State: South Carolina; 
Program year 1997: 47%; 
Program year 1998: -36%; 
Program year 1999: 0%; 
Program year 2000: 37%. 

State: South Dakota; 
Program year 1997: 7%; 
Program year 1998: 17%; 
Program year 1999: 112%; 
Program year 2000: -26%. 

State: Tennessee; 
Program year 1997: -2%; 
Program year 1998: 30%; 
Program year 1999: -3%; 
Program year 2000: -23%. 

State: Texas; 
Program year 1997: -3%; 
Program year 1998: 12%; 
Program year 1999: 7%; 
Program year 2000: 13%. 

State: Utah; 
Program year 1997: -24%; 
Program year 1998: 63%; 
Program year 1999: 41%; 
Program year 2000: 11%. 

State: Vermont; 
Program year 1997: 42%; 
Program year 1998: 17%; 
Program year 1999: -29%; 
Program year 2000: 11%. 

State: Virginia; 
Program year 1997: 9%; 
Program year 1998: 4%; 
Program year 1999: -26%; 
Program year 2000: 0%. 

State: Washington; 
Program year 1997: 9%; 
Program year 1998: -26%; 
Program year 1999: 63%; 
Program year 2000: -4%. 

State: West Virginia; 
Program year 1997: -2%; 
Program year 1998: 1%; 
Program year 1999: 56%; 
Program year 2000: -14%. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Program year 1997: -5%; 
Program year 1998: 22%; 
Program year 1999: 7%; 
Program year 2000: 17%. 

State: Wyoming; 
Program year 1997: 7%; 
Program year 1998: 17%; 
Program year 1999: 41%; 
Program year 2000: 11%. 

State: US + Puerto Rico; 
Program year 1997: 4%; 
Program year 1998: 4%; 
Program year 1999: 13%; 
Program year 2000: 0%. 

[End of table] 

Table 11: Total Dislocated Worker Allotment per Unemployed Worker for 
Program Years 1997 through 2001, by State: 

State: Alabama; 
Program year 1997: $135;
Program year 1998: $107; 
Program year 1999: $127; 
Program year 2000: $133; 
Program year 2001: $156. 

State: Alaska; 
Program year 1997: $170;
Program year 1998: $230; 
Program year 1999: $298; 
Program year 2000: $354; 
Program year 2001: $595. 

State: Arizona; 
Program year 1997: $100;
Program year 1998: $121; 
Program year 1999: $101; 
Program year 2000: $116; 
Program year 2001: $138. 

State: Arkansas; 
Program year 1997: $96;
Program year 1998: $142; 
Program year 1999: $173; 
Program year 2000: $206; 
Program year 2001: $132. 

State: California; 
Program year 1997: $195;
Program year 1998: $220; 
Program year 1999: $262; 
Program year 2000: $325; 
Program year 2001: $327. 

State: Colorado; 
Program year 1997: $77;
Program year 1998: $92; 
Program year 1999: $91; 
Program year 2000: $128; 
Program year 2001: $134. 

State: Connecticut; 
Program year 1997: $139;
Program year 1998: $156; 
Program year 1999: $148; 
Program year 2000: $162; 
Program year 2001: $173. 

State: Delaware; 
Program year 1997: $107;
Program year 1998: $110; 
Program year 1999: $122; 
Program year 2000: $129; 
Program year 2001: $154. 

State: District of Columbia; 
Program year 1997: $237;
Program year 1998: $280; 
Program year 1999: $416; 
Program year 2000: $537; 
Program year 2001: $545. 

State: Florida; 
Program year 1997: $127;
Program year 1998: $124; 
Program year 1999: $113; 
Program year 2000: $135; 
Program year 2001: $137. 

State: Georgia; 
Program year 1997: $90;
Program year 1998: $94; 
Program year 1999: $108; 
Program year 2000: $139; 
Program year 2001: $141. 

State: Hawaii; 
Program year 1997: $156;
Program year 1998: $197; 
Program year 1999: $266; 
Program year 2000: $375; 
Program year 2001: $235. 

State: Idaho; 
Program year 1997: $102;
Program year 1998: $130; 
Program year 1999: $158; 
Program year 2000: $188; 
Program year 2001: $131. 

State: Illinois; 
Program year 1997: $129;
Program year 1998: $129; 
Program year 1999: $122; 
Program year 2000: $143; 
Program year 2001: $151. 

State: Indiana; 
Program year 1997: $84;
Program year 1998: $105; 
Program year 1999: $103; 
Program year 2000: $119; 
Program year 2001: $109. 

State: Iowa; 
Program year 1997: $79;
Program year 1998: $98; 
Program year 1999: $110; 
Program year 2000: $118; 
Program year 2001: $154. 

State: Kansas; 
Program year 1997: $87;
Program year 1998: $90; 
Program year 1999: $101; 
Program year 2000: $116; 
Program year 2001: $116. 

State: Kentucky; 
Program year 1997: $125;
Program year 1998: $159; 
Program year 1999: $117; 
Program year 2000: $137; 
Program year 2001: $150. 

State: Louisiana; 
Program year 1997: $176;
Program year 1998: $200; 
Program year 1999: $225; 
Program year 2000: $235; 
Program year 2001: $241. 

State: Maine; 
Program year 1997: $132;
Program year 1998: $121; 
Program year 1999: $136; 
Program year 2000: $148; 
Program year 2001: $132. 

State: Maryland; 
Program year 1997: $120;
Program year 1998: $113; 
Program year 1999: $151; 
Program year 2000: $158; 
Program year 2001: $191. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Program year 1997: $120;
Program year 1998: $109; 
Program year 1999: $119; 
Program year 2000: $136; 
Program year 2001: $162. 

State: Michigan; 
Program year 1997: $107;
Program year 1998: $98; 
Program year 1999: $111; 
Program year 2000: $117; 
Program year 2001: $126. 

State: Minnesota; 
Program year 1997: $85;
Program year 1998: $96; 
Program year 1999: $119; 
Program year 2000: $119; 
Program year 2001: $144. 

State: Mississippi; 
Program year 1997: $142;
Program year 1998: $169; 
Program year 1999: $210; 
Program year 2000: $216; 
Program year 2001: $437. 

State: Missouri; 
Program year 1997: $94;
Program year 1998: $101; 
Program year 1999: $116; 
Program year 2000: $160; 
Program year 2001: $156. 

State: Montana; 
Program year 1997: $140;
Program year 1998: $129; 
Program year 1999: $198; 
Program year 2000: $257; 
Program year 2001: $301. 

State: Nebraska; 
Program year 1997: $64;
Program year 1998: $85; 
Program year 1999: $107; 
Program year 2000: $103; 
Program year 2001: $119. 

State: Nevada; 
Program year 1997: $110;
Program year 1998: $111; 
Program year 1999: $100; 
Program year 2000: $140; 
Program year 2001: $142. 

State: New Hampshire; 
Program year 1997: $95;
Program year 1998: $113; 
Program year 1999: $89; 
Program year 2000: $127; 
Program year 2001: $106. 

State: New Jersey; 
Program year 1997: $173;
Program year 1998: $186; 
Program year 1999: $176; 
Program year 2000: $160; 
Program year 2001: $182. 

State: New Mexico; 
Program year 1997: $158;
Program year 1998: $218; 
Program year 1999: $271; 
Program year 2000: $401; 
Program year 2001: $476. 

State: New York; 
Program year 1997: $172;
Program year 1998: $207; 
Program year 1999: $276; 
Program year 2000: $305; 
Program year 2001: $252. 

State: North Carolina; 
Program year 1997: $80;
Program year 1998: $92; 
Program year 1999: $107; 
Program year 2000: $143; 
Program year 2001: $131. 

State: North Dakota; 
Program year 1997: $89;
Program year 1998: $83; 
Program year 1999: $107; 
Program year 2000: $150; 
Program year 2001: $133. 

State: Ohio; 
Program year 1997: $108;
Program year 1998: $112; 
Program year 1999: $112; 
Program year 2000: $126; 
Program year 2001: $142. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Program year 1997: $88;
Program year 1998: $93; 
Program year 1999: $111; 
Program year 2000: $125; 
Program year 2001: $130. 

State: Oregon; 
Program year 1997: $95;
Program year 1998: $156; 
Program year 1999: $188; 
Program year 2000: $310; 
Program year 2001: $319. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
Program year 1997: $145;
Program year 1998: $148; 
Program year 1999: $133; 
Program year 2000: $147; 
Program year 2001: $159. 

State: Puerto Rico; 
Program year 1997: $222;
Program year 1998: $291; 
Program year 1999: $463; 
Program year 2000: $692; 
Program year 2001: $1,193. 

State: Rhode Island; 
Program year 1997: $162;
Program year 1998: $140; 
Program year 1999: $160; 
Program year 2000: $146; 
Program year 2001: $145. 

State: South Carolina; 
Program year 1997: $133;
Program year 1998: $168; 
Program year 1999: $124; 
Program year 2000: $126; 
Program year 2001: $148. 

State: South Dakota; 
Program year 1997: $72;
Program year 1998: $79; 
Program year 1999: $92; 
Program year 2000: $144; 
Program year 2001: $133. 

State: Tennessee; 
Program year 1997: $111;
Program year 1998: $130; 
Program year 1999: $113; 
Program year 2000: $131; 
Program year 2001: $123. 

State: Texas; 
Program year 1997: $142;
Program year 1998: $150; 
Program year 1999: $152; 
Program year 2000: $156; 
Program year 2001: $139. 

State: Utah; 
Program year 1997: $78;
Program year 1998: $75; 
Program year 1999: $96; 
Program year 2000: $118; 
Program year 2001: $134. 

State: Vermont; 
Program year 1997: $79;
Program year 1998: $98; 
Program year 1999: $121; 
Program year 2000: $120; 
Program year 2001: $136. 

State: Virginia; 
Program year 1997: $89;
Program year 1998: $99; 
Program year 1999: $122; 
Program year 2000: $123; 
Program year 2001: $131. 

State: Washington; 
Program year 1997: $150;
Program year 1998: $156; 
Program year 1999: $102; 
Program year 2000: $191; 
Program year 2001: $190. 

State: West Virginia; 
Program year 1997: $200;
Program year 1998: $232; 
Program year 1999: $305; 
Program year 2000: $452; 
Program year 2001: $556. 

State: Wisconsin; 
Program year 1997: $84;
Program year 1998: $87; 
Program year 1999: $107; 
Program year 2000: $120; 
Program year 2001: $132. 

State: Wyoming; 
Program year 1997: $86;
Program year 1998: $107; 
Program year 1999: $106; 
Program year 2000: $159; 
Program year 2001: $151. 

State: US + Puerto Rico; 
Program year 1997: $140;
Program year 1998: $155; 
Program year 1999: $176; 
Program year 2000: $209; 
Program year 2001: $223. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments From the U.S. Department of Labor: 

U.S. Department of Labor: 
A Proud Member of America's Workforce Network: 
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training: 
Washington, D.C. 20210: 

January 25, 2002: 

Mr. Sigurd R. Nilsen: 
Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Nilsen: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report titled, 
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula 
Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program (GAO-02-274). I read the report 
with interest, and appreciate the considerable effort it represents as 
well as the thoughtful recommendations the General Accounting Office 
has provided. This is the first opportunity for the Employment and 
Training Administration (ETA) to review many of the areas of inquiry 
regarding the states' use of dislocated worker funds for rapid response 
as well as the use of statewide set-aside funds. We will be analyzing 
this data to determine other areas in which states may need technical 
assistance or guidance regarding the opportunities afforded them with 
this funding. 

The following are ETA's comments: 

The draft report provides an informative review of how the states have 
responded to the challenges presented by the implementation of the 
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and many of the key issues 
during the implementation process. The draft report presents three 
recommendations for executive action and presents, as a matter for 
Congressional consideration, the subject of modifying the existing 
dislocated worker funding formula to better reflect the distribution of 
dislocated workers. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Recommendation: Identify areas proactively that emerge as requiring 
additional guidance to help state and local areas implement the 
dislocated worker program. 

Comment: As the report points out, Congress passed the WIA with the 
intent to provide greater flexibility to states and local workforce 
areas. ETA regards this flexibility as one of the fundamental 
principles governing its relationship to the workforce investment 
system, and has been prudent in considering guidance that would have 
the effect of setting national requirements for program operations. As 
a result of the findings contained in its initial assessments of WIA 
implementation (Report on Early State Progress Toward WIA 
Implementation: Final Interim Report (February 2001), and The Status of 
the WIA Readiness Implementation Report (March 2001)), ETA organized 
four WIA readiness workgroups comprised of representatives of local, 
state and federal partners. The workgroups confirmed the basic findings 
and identified several potential areas for the development of 
additional federal guidance. 

For adult and dislocated worker programs, areas that emerged and have 
been targeted for guidance by ETA include: increasing the participation 
of training providers as Eligible Training Providers; clarifying 
eligibility determination policies, procedures and documentation; 
delineating the point of registration for adult and dislocated worker 
programs to establish consistent measurement of participant services 
throughout the system; clarifying WIA policy on "work first" and 
customer-focused services; and clarifying the levels of service (core, 
intensive and training) and eligibility for each. These and other WIA 
implementation issues, and short-term actions proposed to address them, 
are discussed in Training and Employment Information Notice No. 4-01, 
November 14, 2001, Subject: WIA Readiness Workgroup Activities. 

Recommendation: Disseminate guidance that is more responsive to the 
concerns of workforce officials responsible for implementing WIA's 
requirements, including when to register individuals into the 
dislocated worker program and how to provide additional assistance to 
local areas using rapid response funds. 

Comment: As discussed above, the "point of registration" issue was 
addressed by the WIA Readiness Workgroup, and ETA plans to issue 
additional guidance on this topic. Our review has found that the 
issuance of a clarification regarding when to register WIA participants 
should take into consideration the following factors: 1) the need to 
ensure adequate services for those who are registered, especially the 
availability of a range of training program options; 2) the need to 
assess the potential impact of such a clarification on the performance 
accountability system currently in effect for WIA; 3) the relationship 
between registration and eligibility issues and the pending development 
of eligibility guidance; and 4) the absence of a "One-Stop system 
measure" capturing all individuals - registered and unregistered - 
served by the One-Stop system. ETA believes that a common point of 
registration is an integral component of a nationwide system of 
performance accountability. The interdependence between registration 
and the factors identified above means that registration guidance 
cannot be developed in isolation, and must reflect the complexities of 
the performance accountability system that has been established under 
WIA. 

The subject of how to provide additional assistance to local areas 
using rapid response funds was not identified as an issue in ETA's WIA 
implementation assessments or the WIA Readiness Workgroups. During 
Calendar Year 2001, the primary financial issue affecting the 
dislocated worker program has been the relatively low rate of
expenditures reported by the states, a condition which was the primary 
impetus for Congress to pass legislation in July rescinding $177.5 
million in dislocated worker funds. Nonetheless, the draft report's 
Appendix II, Table 5 Program Year 2000 Dislocated Worker Allotment and 
Rapid Response Set-Aside Funds in 42 States, provides valuable 
information for ETA and for the workforce investment system in 
considering how dislocated worker resources are allocated. 

In reviewing the data, there appear to be two groups of states that 
chose not to provide significant additional assistance to local areas: 
(1) states that reserved amounts of rapid response funds far below the 
25 percent authorized in the Act, which seriously limited their ability 
to use such funds to provide additional assistance to local areas (e.g.,
Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico and New York), and (2) 
states with relatively higher proportions reserved, but relatively 
small amounts available for additional assistance (e.g., Connecticut, 
Mississippi, New Jersey, Oregon and Puerto Rico). Because worker 
dislocations take place after formula funds are allocated to local 
areas, available resources do not always match need. ETA believes that 
Governors should strongly consider using the authority provided in WIA 
to assist local areas in responding to increased worker dislocations 
during the Program Year. The information provided by Appendix II, Table 
5 will allow ETA to explore this issue with states that did not provide 
significant additional assistance funds to local areas and determine 
whether federal guidance is necessary on this topic. 

Recommendation: Disseminate timely information on best practices being 
developed by local areas to meet the needs of dislocated workers. 

Comment: Beginning in early 1998, ETA has supported a National 
Dislocated Worker and Rapid Response Workgroup. This group helped to 
organize two national conferences and developed several technical 
assistance products. The group will be reconstituted in 2002 and a new 
agenda developed to reflect current issues. Staff in local workforce 
areas will be among the audiences targeted for technical assistance. 

In addition, ETA has a contract with the State of Illinois to develop a 
website to display "promising practices" in a timely manner. 
Appropriate screening criteria will be used to assure policies and 
approaches put up on the site meet the intent of the WIA. Meetings are 
scheduled in January 2002 to begin implementation of the project. 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Suggestion: The report suggests that Congress consider modifying the 
existing dislocated worker funding formula, in order to minimize 
funding volatility and to ensure that dislocated worker funds are 
better distributed to states in relation to their dislocated worker 
population. It also suggests that Congress may wish to direct DOL to 
undertake a study of the dislocated worker funding formula to identify 
factors that would better distribute program funds to states in 
relation to their dislocated worker population. The report observes 
that "without stable funding levels that are tied to the number of 
dislocated workers, states are unable to conduct meaningful long- or 
short-term financial planning that is necessary to develop and deliver 
high quality services for dislocated workers." 

Comment: ETA has been aware of the severe year-to-year funding 
fluctuations created by the present formula and the concomitant 
difficulties for states in their planning and delivery of dislocated 
worker services. We believe that resource allocation practices should 
ensure that funds are distributed in a manner that puts resources where 
they are most needed. In conjunction with the WIA-mandated review of 
the adult funding formula, ETA has initiated a review of the WIA 
dislocated worker funding formula and fund distribution process. In 
addition, ETA will seek to identify effective practices for states to 
consider in determining within-state allocations of dislocated worker 
funds. We note that several states are revising their state dislocated 
worker distribution formulae. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. If you have questions 
regarding these comments, please contact me at (202) 693-2700, James 
Aaron at (202) 693-2814, or Shirley M. Smith at (202) 693-3500. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Emily Stover DeRocco: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Joan Mahagan, Assistant Director (617) 565-7532: 
Wayne Sylvia, Analyst-in-Charge (617) 565-7492: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Arthur Merriam, Joseph Evans, and Lorin Obler made significant 
contributions to this report, in all aspects of the work throughout the 
review. In addition, Jerry Fastrup and Richard Horte led the analysis 
of the dislocated worker funding formula, James Wright and John Smale 
assisted in the design of the two national surveys, Jessica Botsford 
and Richard Burkard provided legal support, and Corinna Nicolaou 
assisted in the message and report development. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Standards 
to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-275]. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 
2002. 

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns 
Over New Requirements. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-72]. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 
2001. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Experiences of Six Trade-Impacted 
Communities. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-838]. 
Washington, D.C.: August 24, 2001. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Proposed Performance 
Measurement System Improved, But Further Changes Needed. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-580]. Washington, D.C.: May 15, 
2001. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Trends, Outcomes, and Management Issues in 
Dislocated Worker Programs. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-59]. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 
2000. 

Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of 
TANF Services. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-00-145]. Washington, D.C.: June 
29, 2000. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] A program year begins on July 1 of a year and ends on June 30 of 
the following year. A program year is designated by the year in which 
it begins. Thus, program year 2000 began on July 1, 2000, and ended on 
June 30, 2001. 

[2] Hereinafter, the term “states” will refer collectively to the 50 
states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 

[3] A displaced homemaker is an individual who has been providing 
unpaid services to family members in the home and who (a) has been 
dependent on the income of another family member but is no longer 
supported by that income and (b) is unemployed or underemployed and is 
experiencing difficulty in obtaining or upgrading employment. 

[4] The criteria for determining whether employment leads to self-
sufficiency are set by either state or local workforce boards and, for 
dislocated workers, may include employment that pays a percentage of 
the layoff wage or employment that pays a specified wage established 
for the local area. 

[5] Short-term prevocational services prepare individuals for 
employment or training and include development of learning skills, 
communication skills, interviewing skills, punctuality, personal 
maintenance, and professional conduct. 

[6] Customized training is designed to meet the special requirements of 
an employer and is conducted with a commitment by the employer to hire 
the individual upon successful completion of the training, for which 
the employer pays not less than 50 percent of the cost. 

[7] See U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training 
Administration, Office of Field Operations, Status of WIA Readiness 
Implementation Report (Washington, D.C.: 2001). 

[8] See U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training 
Administration, A Report on Early State Progress Toward WIA 
Implementation: Final Interim Report (Washington, D.C.: 2001). 

[9] See U.S. General Accounting Office,Workforce Investment Act: Better 
Guidance Needed to Address Concerns Over New Requirements, GAO-02-72 
(Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001). 

[10] See U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training 
Administration, Office of Field Operations, Status of WIA Readiness 
Implementation Report (Washington, D.C.: 2001). 

[11] Although 50 states responded to our survey, eight states could not 
separate program year 1999 carryover funds from program year 2000 funds 
in their reporting. 

[12] Rapid response activities include specific rapid response services 
as well as additional assistance provided to local workforce areas. 

[13] Each state must allocate at least 60 percent of its dislocated 
worker funds to local workforce areas according to a formula 
established by the state. 

[14] These services are not provided by all local workforce areas 
within a state, nor are they necessarily provided for all layoffs and 
plant closings within a local workforce area. 

[15] Although states may have a policy for responding to specific 
layoffs, situations may occur that prevent states from providing rapid 
response services, such as an employer’s not notifying the state unit 
that a layoff is going to occur or an employer’s not allowing the state 
unit on-site to provide services. 

[16] Because the number of total unemployed includes many who are not 
eligible for many of the services provided under the dislocated workers 
program, we also compared, using Labor data, Texas’s and Mississippi’s 
funding per unemployed worker. We found even larger funding disparities 
based on this indicator of program need. For example, in 2001, 
Mississippi’s funding was more than 4 times that of Texas. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The General Accounting Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO’s Web site [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full text files of current 
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The 
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using 
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 
including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail 
alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

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

Orders should be sent to: 

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

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

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

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: