This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-886 
entitled 'Registered Apprenticeship Programs: Labor Can Better Use Data 
to Target Oversight' which was released on September 13, 2005. 

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

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

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

August 2005: 

Registered Apprenticeship Programs: 

Labor Can Better Use Data to Target Oversight: 

GAO-05-886: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-886, a report to congressional requesters: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Between 2002 and 2012 nearly 850,000 jobs will open in the construction 
industry; experts predict that there will not be enough skilled workers 
to fill them. This has heightened concerns about program outcomes and 
program quality in the nation’s apprenticeship system and the 
Department of Labor’s oversight of it. GAO assessed (1) the extent to 
which Labor monitors registered apprenticeship programs in the states 
where it has direct oversight, (2) its oversight activities in states 
that do their own monitoring, and (3) the outcomes for construction 
apprentices in programs sponsored by employers and unions in relation 
to programs sponsored by employers alone. 

What GAO Found: 

Labor’s monitoring of programs it directly oversees has been limited. 
We found that in 2004 Labor reviewed only 4 percent of programs in the 
23 states where it has direct oversight. According to federal program 
directors in those states, limited staff constrained their ability to 
do more reviews. Also, Labor has focused in recent years on registering 
new programs and recruiting apprentices. Although Labor collects much 
data about the programs it oversees, it has not employed its database 
to generate information indicative of program performance, such as 
completion rates, that might allow it to be more efficient in its 
oversight. 

Labor does not regularly review council-monitored states or collect 
data from them that would allow for a national picture of 
apprenticeships. Labor is responsible for conducting formal reviews of 
the 27 states and the District of Columbia that established 
apprenticeship councils to monitor their own apprenticeship programs; 
but, according to directors in these states, the reviews have been 
infrequent and not necessarily useful. While Labor collects only 
aggregate data on apprentices from most of these states, we identified 
10 states with large numbers of apprentices that were willing and 
capable of providing GAO data on apprentices by occupation as well as 
some information on completion rates, completion times, and wages. 

Data in Labor’s apprenticeship database and from council-monitored 
states show that completion rates and wages for construction 
apprentices in programs sponsored jointly by employers and unions were 
higher than those for programs sponsored by employers alone. We found 
that completion rates for apprentices in programs jointly sponsored by 
unions and employers were 47 percent on average compared with 30 
percent in programs sponsored solely by employers. Completion rates 
declined under both types of sponsorship for the period we examined, 
but Labor, as part of its oversight, does not track reasons for 
noncompletion, making it difficult to determine what lies behind this 
trend. 

Construction Apprentices at Work: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that Labor better utilize its database for 
oversight—particularly for apprenticeship programs with expected future 
labor shortages—develop a cost effective strategy for collecting data 
from council-monitored states for selected occupations, conduct its 
reviews of apprenticeship activities in states that regulate their own 
programs on a regular basis to ensure that state activities are in 
accord with those requirements set forth by federal law, and offer 
substantive feedback. Labor concurred with these recommendations and 
said it has taken initial steps to implement them. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-886. 

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

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Labor's Monitoring of Registered Apprenticeship Programs Is Limited: 

Labor Has Reviewed Council-Monitored States Infrequently, Provided 
Little Feedback, and Not Collected Data That Would Allow for a National 
Picture of Apprenticeships: 

Construction Apprenticeship Completion Rates and Wages Vary by Program 
Sponsor: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken to Complete, and Wages for 
Construction Apprentices in Council-Monitored States: 

Appendix III: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in 
Federally-Monitored States: 

Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in 
Council-Monitored States: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Differences between Actual and Expected Completion Time for 
Apprentices in Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs in Weeks: 

Table 2: Survey Numbers and Response Rates: 

Table 3: Percentages of Apprentices Completing Joint and Non-joint 
Construction Programs as Reported by Selected Council-monitored States 
for Fiscal Years 1997-2004: 

Table 4: Average Number of Weeks Spent to Complete Joint and Non-joint 
Construction Apprenticeship Programs as Reported by Selected Council- 
monitored States: 

Table 5: Mean Hourly Wage Rates for Beginning Apprentices in Joint and 
Non-joint Construction Programs as Reported by Selected Council- 
monitored States, Fiscal Year 2004: 

Table 6: Mean Hourly Wage Rates for Apprentices Achieving Journey 
Status in Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs as Reported by 
Selected Council-monitored States, Fiscal Year 2004: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: States with Apprenticeship Programs Overseen by Federal 
Officials and State Apprenticeship Councils: 

Figure 2: Frequency of Quality and Equal Employment Opportunity Reviews 
of Apprenticeship Programs in Federally-and Council-monitored States 
during Fiscal Year 2004: 

Figure 3: Frequency of Federal Reviews of Council-monitored States: 

Figure 4: Council-monitored States' Rankings of the Usefulness of 
Federal Quality Reviews: 

Figure 5: Council-monitored States' Rankings of the Usefulness of EEO 
Reviews: 

Figure 6: Completion Rates after 6 Years for Apprentices Entering 
Construction Programs in FY 1994 through 1998: 

Figure 7: Completion Rates after 6 Years by Occupation for Apprentices 
Who Began Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs between FY 1994 and 
1998: 

Figure 8: Enrollment for Apprentices in Joint and Non-joint 
Construction Programs, FY 1994 through 1998: 

Figure 9: Trends in Completion Rates after 6 Years for Apprentices in 
Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs Entering Programs in FY 1994 
through 1998: 

Figure 10: Average Wages for Apprentices in Joint and Non-Joint 
Construction Programs in FY 2004: 

Abbreviations: 

EEO: Equal Employment Opportunity: 
ETA: Employment and Training Administration: 
OATELS: Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor Services: 
RAIS: Registered Apprenticeship Information System: 
SAC: State Apprenticeship Council: 
WIA: Workforce Investment Act: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

August 29, 2005: 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Patty Murray: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions: 
United States Senate: 

Between 2002 and 2012 an estimated 850,000 jobs will open in the 
construction industry, but experts predict that there will not be 
enough skilled workers to fill them. The National Registered 
Apprenticeships System, administered by the Office of Apprenticeship 
Training, Employer and Labor Services (OATELS) within the Department of 
Labor, has an important role in the development of this skilled 
workforce. With a budget of $21 million, OATELS promulgates standards 
to safeguard the welfare of apprentices and registers apprenticeship 
programs that meet those standards, which include requirements for 
related instruction, on-the-job training, and equal employment 
opportunity for apprentices. OATELS also oversees apprenticeship 
programs to ensure that they provide quality training for apprentices, 
as many as 480,000 of whom may be enrolled at any one time. Labor, 
through OATELS, directly registers and oversees programs in 23 states. 
It has granted 27 other states, the District of Columbia, and 3 
territories authority to register and oversee their own programs, and 
ensures programs comply with federal standards and meet additional 
state standards. In these states, referred to here as council-monitored 
states, OATELS reviews the activities of the apprenticeship councils 
that are responsible for ensuring programs in their state comply with 
federal labor standards and equal opportunity protections. While Labor 
and apprenticeship councils provide oversight, recent studies have 
shown that a significant number of construction apprentices are not 
completing their programs and that construction programs sponsored by 
employers without union participation have lower completion rates and 
wages for apprentices. In addition, some have raised concerns that the 
failure to complete programs could be indicative of poor program 
quality. The anticipated shortage of skilled construction workers has 
heightened concerns about the relationship between program outcomes and 
program quality, the prospect for expanding the supply of skilled 
workers through apprenticeships, and Labor's oversight of these 
programs. 

In view of these concerns, you asked us to review the extent of federal 
oversight of apprenticeship programs in general and compare 
apprenticeship outcomes in the construction industry by type of program 
sponsorship. Specifically, we assessed (1) the extent to which the U.S. 
Department of Labor monitors the operations and outcomes of registered 
apprenticeship programs in the states where it has direct oversight, 
(2) its oversight activities for council-monitored states, and (3) the 
outcomes for construction apprentices in programs sponsored jointly by 
employers and unions in relation to those sponsored by employers alone. 

To obtain national information on Labor's monitoring and oversight 
activities, we surveyed all state directors of apprenticeship training 
programs through electronic questionnaires posted on the World Wide 
Web. We excluded the three territories--Guam, Puerto Rico, and the 
Virgin Islands--from our analyses because the few programs they had 
were atypical. We also visited four states, both federal (Texas) and 
council-monitored (California, New York, and Washington), that had 
large numbers of construction apprentices (from about 52,000 to 6,500). 
In these states, we talked to knowledgeable officials, private-sector 
experts and stakeholders, including employer and labor union sponsors 
of apprenticeship programs. In some cases, we visited apprentice 
training facilities. To determine completion rates, times to 
completion, and wage rates for apprentices, we analyzed data in Labor's 
apprenticeship database for the fiscal years 1994 through 2004. In 
calculating completion rates, we constructed five cohorts based on when 
apprentices enrolled in a program--1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, or 1998--and 
established their completion status 6 years after they enrolled. These 
analyses included data on programs in 23 states where Labor has direct 
oversight and programs in 8 council-monitored states.[Footnote 1] In 
addition, we obtained comparable data on construction programs from 10 
council-monitored states that have large numbers of construction 
apprentices and were able to provide this information. The 41 states 
for which we had some type of data accounted for an estimated 92 
percent of all construction apprentices. We also interviewed Labor 
officials and other knowledgeable parties. (See app. I.) We conducted 
our work between August of 2004 and July 2005 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

Labor's monitoring of the programs it directly oversees has been 
limited, in part, due to staffing levels and also its reluctance to use 
data to target oversight. In 2004, Labor reviewed only 4 percent of 
programs in the 23 states where it has direct oversight, in part, 
because of limited staffing, according to federal program directors in 
those states. Currently each reviewer has responsibility for about 
2,000 apprentices for whom they enter apprentice and program 
information in Labor's database, in addition to reviewing program 
quality and equal employment opportunities, and overseeing program 
progress. Labor officials also said that in recent years their 
resources have been more focused on developing new programs and 
recruiting apprentices, particularly for new fields. Although Labor 
collects much data about the programs it oversees, its Apprenticeship 
Office has not employed its database to generate information on program 
performance. Federal program directors for the states told us, for 
example, that they do not systematically use outcome data from the 
database, such as completion rates or apprentices' reasons for dropping 
out, to determine which programs to review. This limited use of data 
may stem, in part, from challenges in accessing it. These program 
directors reported that they were not able to generate customized 
reports and that data fields had been changing frequently. Recently, 
however, the Apprenticeship Office has begun piloting new software that 
agency officials say will make it possible for federal program 
directors to effectively extract information from the database and 
generate customized reports. Still, federal program directors in two 
states who were already using the software said they were still unable 
to look at programs by occupation at the state level, a level of 
analysis that most state program directors--17 of 23 we surveyed--said 
they wanted. In addition, we found little evidence that the 
Apprenticeship Office had systematically sought input from federal 
program directors regarding their reporting needs or problems they 
might face in using the new software. Nor could Labor officials provide 
a plan with explicit steps for its implementation. 

Labor does not regularly review the activities of the states 
apprenticeship councils or collect data from them that would allow for 
a national picture of apprenticeships. Labor's reviews have been 
infrequent, according to directors of apprenticeship systems in most of 
the 27 council-monitored states. Moreover, some directors reported not 
having had reviews in the last 9 to 12 years, and our examination of 
apprenticeship office documents indicated the department had conducted 
only three reviews for 2002 and 2003, and none for 2004. In addition, 
many directors reported the reviews were of limited use in helping them 
assess programs or make informed decisions about their administration, 
in part because of the limited feedback they received. While neither 
statute nor regulations specify the frequency of these reviews, 
according to Labor officials they are important for ensuring that 
states are fulfilling federal requirements for recognition and 
oversight of apprenticeship programs. Labor has only collected 
aggregate counts of apprentices from most of these states, and to date 
has been unable to develop a composite national picture of apprentices. 
We nevertheless found 10 states with large numbers of apprentices that 
readily provided apprentice data to us by industry, sponsor, and 
occupation, as well as some information on completions, on-time 
completions, and wages--information that Labor could use to build a 
national portrait of apprentices in key programs. 

Data in Labor's apprenticeship database and from council-monitored 
states show that completion rates and wages for construction 
apprentices in programs sponsored jointly by employers and unions were 
higher than those for programs sponsored by employers alone. Of 
apprentices beginning training between 1994 and 1998 (and completing by 
2004), on average, 47 percent of those in programs sponsored jointly 
with unions completed compared with 30 percent in programs sponsored 
solely by employers, a 17 percentage point difference. Officials said 
joint programs had higher completion rates because they were more 
established and more likely to provide mentoring and job placement 
services. Despite growth in construction program enrollments, 
completion rates consistently declined for both types of program 
sponsorship for the time period we examined. Specifically, while 59 
percent of the apprentices who enrolled in construction programs in 
1994 graduated within 6 years, only 37 percent of 1998 enrollees did. 
Given that Labor, as part of its oversight, does not track the reasons 
for noncompletions, it is difficult to determine what lies behind this 
trend or what might account for differences in completion rates by type 
of sponsorship. Those apprentices that did complete programs within 6 
years tended to finish earlier than they were expected to. Construction 
wages were generally higher for apprentices in joint programs than for 
those in non-joint programs--being more than $2.00 per hour higher on 
average at the start and $6.00 per hour higher on average at completion 
of training in 2004, the first full year Labor began collecting wage 
data. Factors that may explain such differences in wages include the 
presence of a collective bargaining agreement. 

In this report we recommend that the Secretary of Labor take steps to 
use the data Labor has to better target its oversight activities, 
develop a cost-effective strategy for collecting data from council- 
monitored states, and conduct regular reviews with feedback for those 
states. In its written comments on a draft of this report the 
Department of Labor concurred with these recommendations and said it is 
taking initial steps to implement them. 

Background: 

Although apprenticeship programs in the United States are largely 
private systems that are paid for largely by program sponsors, the 
National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 authorizes and directs the 
Secretary of Labor to formulate and promote labor standards that 
safeguard the welfare of apprentices. The responsibility for 
formulating and promoting these standards resides with OATELS. OATELS 
had a staff of about 176 full-time equivalencies and an annual 
appropriation of about $21 million in 2004. In addition, because of 
budgetary constraints, OATELS officials do not expect resources to 
increase. At the national level, OATELS can register and deregister 
apprenticeship programs (i.e., give or take away federal recognition), 
issue nationally recognized, portable certificates to individuals who 
have completed registered programs, plan appropriate outreach 
activities targeted to attract women and minorities, and promote new 
apprenticeship programs to meet workforce needs. In addition to this 
national role, OATELS directly oversees individual apprenticeship 
programs in 23 states. In these states, the director for the state's 
apprenticeship system and other program staff are federal employees who 
monitor individual apprenticeship programs for quality and their 
provision of equal opportunity. 

Labor can give authority to states to oversee their own apprenticeship 
programs if the state meets certain requirements. Labor has given this 
authority to 27 states, the District of Columbia, and three 
territories. In these states, which we refer to as council-monitored, 
the federal government is not responsible for monitoring individual 
apprenticeship programs; instead, the state is. It does so through 
state apprenticeship councils. OATELS does, however, conduct two types 
of reviews to determine how well the state fulfills its 
responsibilities. Quality reviews determine, in part, conformance with 
prescribed federal requirements concerning state apprenticeship laws, 
state council composition, and program registration, cancellation and 
deregistration provisions. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) reviews 
assess the conformity of state EEO plans, affirmative action 
activities, record-keeping procedures, and other activities with 
federal EEO regulations. In addition to these reviews, OATELS may also 
provide state agencies with federal staff to assist in day-to-day 
operations. 

The number and type of construction apprenticeship programs are 
distributed differently across federally-and council-monitored states. 
Council-monitored states not only have more programs, but these 
programs are more likely to be jointly sponsored by employers and 
unions than sponsored by employers alone. On average, a construction 
apprenticeship program in federally-monitored states trains about 17 
apprentices and in council-monitored states trains about 20. Beyond 
this average, it's important to note that there can be great variation 
among programs, with some having over 400 participants and others 1 or 
2. Figure 1 identifies states where programs are federally-and council- 
monitored. 

Figure 1: States with Apprenticeship Programs Overseen by Federal 
Officials and State Apprenticeship Councils: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Both the federal and council-monitored states collect data on the 
individual programs they oversee. Labor maintains a large database 
called the Registered Apprenticeship Information System (RAIS) and 
collects information about individual programs, apprentices, and 
sponsors for apprenticeships in the 23 states where it has direct 
oversight and in 8 council-monitored states that have chosen to report 
into this system. The other council-monitored states, 20 in total, 
maintain their own data and collect various pieces of information on 
apprenticeship systems. Labor does collect aggregate data on 
apprentices and programs from these states. 

In all states, individuals can enter the construction trades without 
completing formal apprenticeship programs, but many construction 
workers, particularly those working in highly skilled occupations that 
require extensive training, such as the electrical, carpentry, and 
plumbing trades, receive their training though registered 
apprenticeship programs. To complete their programs, apprentices must 
meet requirements for on-the-job training and classroom instruction 
that must meet the minimum standards for the trade as recognized by 
Labor or the state apprenticeship council. Programs in some trades, for 
example, commercial electricity, may take 5 years to complete but 
programs to train laborers may only take a year. Beginning apprentices' 
wages generally start at about 40 percent of the wage of someone 
certified in a particular trade and rise to about 90 percent of that 
wage near completion. Apprentices' contracts with their program 
sponsors specify a schedule of wage increases. 

Labor's Monitoring of Registered Apprenticeship Programs Is Limited: 

Although OATELS is responsible for overseeing thousands of 
apprenticeship programs in the states where it has direct oversight, it 
reviews few of these programs each year. Also, while its apprenticeship 
database collects much information about individual participants and 
programs, Labor hasn't used these data to systematically generate 
program performance indicators such as completion rates. As a result, 
it lacks information that would allow it to identify poorly performing 
programs and adjust its oversight accordingly. Furthermore, despite 
many technical upgrades, Labor's database hasn't provided information 
that meets the needs of federal apprenticeship directors or the needs 
of other stakeholders. 

Few Federal Staff Are Engaged in Monitoring the Programs That Labor 
Directly Oversees: 

OATELS has reviewed very few of the apprenticeship programs in the 
states where it has direct oversight. Federal apprenticeship directors 
in these states reported they conducted 379 quality reviews in 2004, 
covering only about 4 percent of the programs under their watch. These 
reviews are done to determine, for example, whether sponsors have 
provided related instruction and on-the-job training hours in 
accordance with the standards for the program and whether wages 
reflected actual time in the program. The number of reviews conducted 
varied across states. On average, 22 quality reviews per state were 
conducted, but one director reported conducting as many as 67 reviews 
while another reported conducting no reviews at all. In addition, 
programs in council-monitored states were almost twice as likely as 
programs in federally-monitored states to have been reviewed within 3 
years. (See fig. 2.) Several federal officials said over the past 
several years they had placed primary emphasis on registering new 
programs and recruiting more apprentices, particularly in 
nontraditional areas such as childcare and health. In addition, they 
told us it was not possible to do more reviews in part because of 
limited staff. 

Figure 2: Frequency of Quality and Equal Employment Opportunity Reviews 
of Apprenticeship Programs in Federally-and Council-monitored States 
during Fiscal Year 2004: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

In addition to having fewer reviews, apprenticeships in federally- 
monitored states had fewer staff dedicated to monitoring activities 
than council-monitored states. In 2004, each staff person in a 
federally monitored state was responsible, on average, for about 2,000 
apprentices, according to federal program directors; to put this in 
context, case loads of monitors in federally-monitored states were 
almost twice as large as those in council-monitored states. In 
federally-monitored states, on average there were about 2.5 staff to 
monitor programs, less than one-third the average in council-monitored 
states. Labor's practice of assigning federal staff to monitor programs 
in 18 of the council-monitored states rather than to programs in 
federally-monitored states compounded differences in staff resources. 
Directors in council-monitored states reported that at least two 
federal employees, on average, monitored programs in their 
jurisdiction. As important as the number of staff, is how they spent 
their time. About a half of the staff in federally-monitored states 
spent 40 percent or more of their time in the field performing 
monitoring, oversight, and providing related technical assistance, 
according to federal program directors whereas one-half of the staff in 
council-monitored states spent about 70 percent or more in the field. 

While Labor Collects Much Information about Apprenticeship Programs, It 
Does Not Systematically Use Data to Focus Its Oversight: 

Although Labor collects information to compute completion rates and 
track participants who do not complete programs in the time expected, 
it does not use these data to focus its oversight efforts on programs 
with poor performance. During a site visit in a federally-monitored 
state, a monitor showed us how she computed cancellation rates by hand 
for apprentices in programs that she felt were not doing an adequate 
job of training apprentices to see if her hypotheses were correct. In 
the absence of performance information, directors and staff in 
federally-monitored states reported that a variety of factors dictated 
which programs to review. These included size, newness, location, date 
of the last review, sponsor's cooperativeness, as well as the location 
of staff resources. 

In addition to not using program data to target reviews, Labor has not 
collected and consistently entered into its database information about 
why apprentices cancel out of programs, although its database was 
designed to include such information and having it could help target 
reviews. Officials told us that voluntary cancellation or transfers to 
another program were at times associated with program quality, while 
other nonvoluntary reasons, such as illness or military service, were 
not. Currently, recording the reason for an apprentice's cancellation 
in the database is an optional field. We found that no reason was 
recorded for 60 percent of the cancellations and the remaining 40 
percent did not effectively capture the reasons for leaving. Of the 18 
reasons entered, the most common reasons were "Unknown," "Voluntarily 
Quit," "Unsatisfactory Performance," "Discharged/Released," and 
"Cancelled with the Occupation," some of which did not provide useful 
information to target reviews. Also, other entries were close 
duplicates of one another, such as "left for related employment" and 
"left for other employment."

Labor also treats as optional data entries for its equal employment 
opportunity reviews: including the date of the last review, compliance 
status, status of corrective actions, and other information that would 
improve the efficiency of managing reviews. As a result, such data were 
available for about 5 percent of programs in Labor's database in fiscal 
year 2004. Without this information, it is more difficult to determine 
when programs had their last EEO review and to readily identify 
programs with known problems. 

Labor's Data Base Does Not Meet the Needs of Apprenticeship Directors 
and Other Stakeholders: 

Despite many technical upgrades, Labor's database hasn't provided 
information that meets the needs of its federal directors or the needs 
of other stakeholders. While acknowledging that Labor's database has 
been updated and improved, 22 out of the 23 directors of apprenticeship 
programs and their monitoring staff have expressed dissatisfaction with 
the present system. One complained of "daily" changes to the data 
fields without being informed of "why or when they will change." 
Expressing the desire to select and sort data on any field and generate 
unique reports in context with all available data, another concluded, 
"In short, we need a lot of flexibility with database reports that we 
don't have at this time." Many federal apprenticeship directors made 
recommendations for improving the database. In general, what state 
directors wanted most was a system that was stable, user friendly, and 
that would allow them to produce customized reports to better oversee 
the apprenticeship programs in their states. The list below shows those 
potential improvements endorsed by more than half of the state 
apprenticeship directors: 

* Increase the timeliness of notifications to state and regional 
offices for changes to RAIS (e.g., provide for more frequent 
communication), (22 of 23 surveyed states). 

* Simplify instruction and procedures for producing reports (18 of 23 
surveyed states). 

* Allow production of customized state and regional reports by type of 
industry (18 of 23 surveyed states). 

* Allow production of customized state and regional reports by sponsor 
type (17 of 23) and occupational type (17 of 23 surveyed states). 

* Improve the frequency of RAIS training (17 of 23 surveyed states). 

* Improve the quality of RAIS training (16 of 23 surveyed states). 

* Simplify instructions and procedures for inputting and updating data 
(16 of 23 surveyed states). 

* Increase available coding options to explain why apprentices leave 
the program (14 of 23 surveyed states). 

* Allow production of customized state and regional reports by sex of 
apprentice and race of apprentice (14 of 23 surveyed states). 

OATELS has recently purchased software that enables users to extract 
data from Labor's databases in order to produce customized reports. 
Purchased originally for the Secretary of Labor's use, Labor 
Information Technology and OATELS officials said they foresaw the 
software's utility for many programs and therefore decided to purchase 
licenses for apprenticeship field staff. However, OATELS has not 
necessarily taken steps to ensure field staff will be able to make 
optimal use of the software. About half the directors in federally- 
monitored states did not know the software was available or what it 
was. Although the software was demonstrated at a directors' meeting in 
2004, several couldn't recall the demonstration and others were not in 
attendance. Moreover, two of the directors lacked basic hardware, such 
as a high-speed cable needed to support the software. In fact, one 
director told us he was working from his home because his office didn't 
have such basics as a cable hook-up for his computer. Even if such 
obstacles are surmounted, the new system may not meet the staffs' data 
needs. Two directors who were already attempting to use the software 
reported to us that it did not allow them to select information using 
factors that would be most useful to them, such as state-level data on 
apprenticeship programs. In addition, Labor could or would not supply 
us with formal documentation describing its plans to implement the 
software or its vision of how the software would be used by its staff. 
Labor also reported that because of budget constraints and the easy use 
of the new software, it had no plans to provide training. Without such 
plans, Labor's commitment to the full implementation and future 
financing of the program is questionable. 

Labor Has Reviewed Council-Monitored States Infrequently, Provided 
Little Feedback, and Not Collected Data That Would Allow for a National 
Picture of Apprenticeships: 

Labor has infrequently reviewed states to which it has delegated 
oversight responsibility. This includes both quality reviews and EEO 
reviews to assure that these states are in compliance with federal 
rules for overseeing apprenticeship programs and also adhering to equal 
employment opportunity requirements. Moreover, states that have been 
reviewed in recent years reported that they had little utility for 
helping them manage their programs, in part, because of the little 
feedback they received. In terms of providing information to Congress 
and others, Labor does not collect from these states information that 
is readily available on apprenticeships by occupation or industry, even 
for occupations where shortages of skilled workers are anticipated. 

Labor Has Reviewed Council-Monitored States Infrequently in Recent 
Years: 

Agency records indicate that Labor conducted only three quality and EEO 
reviews of council-monitored states in calendar years 2002 and 2003, 
and none in 2004 but has scheduled seven for 2005. State apprenticeship 
directors confirmed that reviews are infrequent. Twelve of the 27 
directors in council-monitored states reported that OATELS had 
conducted reviews of their programs less frequently than once every 3 
years and several responded that reviews had not taken place in the 
last 9 to 12 years. An additional five directors reported their states 
had never been reviewed or that they were unaware if such reviews had 
taken place. The remaining 10 reported reviews took place in their 
states at least once every 3 years. (See fig. 3.) While neither statute 
nor regulation specifies the frequency with which OATELS should conduct 
such reviews, they constitute an important mechanism for ensuring that 
state laws conform to requirements necessary for Labor's recognition of 
a state's registered apprenticeship program. 

Figure 3: Frequency of Federal Reviews of Council-monitored States: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Officials in Most Council-Monitored States Reported Reviews Were Not 
Very Useful, in Part Because of Limited Feedback: 

State directors reported that the Quality Reviews and the EEO Reviews 
had limited utility for helping them manage their programs. For 
example, only about half of them reported that the quality reviews were 
at least moderately useful for helping them determine their compliance 
with federal regulation. (See fig. 4.) Results were similar for the EEO 
reviews. (See fig. 5.) For example, slightly less than half of state 
directors reported that EEO reviews were at least moderately useful in 
helping them determine their compliance with federal EEO regulations. 
Some directors said reviews would be more useful if they focused on 
reviewing program-related activities in the state. Eight of the 
directors suggested that Labor focus more on state and local conditions 
and the performance of apprenticeship programs instead of focusing only 
on whether council-monitored states comply with federal standards. For 
example, one director reported the feedback he received on EEO 
activities was unrelated to the racial composition of the state. Also, 
some suggested reviews could provide opportunities for federal 
officials to provide assistance and share knowledge about strategies 
that other states have found useful. 

Figure 4: Council-monitored States' Rankings of the Usefulness of 
Federal Quality Reviews: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Figure 5: Council-monitored States' Rankings of the Usefulness of EEO 
Reviews: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

While directors had a number of ideas for improving the usefulness of 
quality and EEO reviews, many noted that Labor provided limited or no 
feedback as part of the review process. For example, one said his state 
agency received a brief letter from Labor stating only that the state 
was in compliance with federal regulations. Two others said their 
agencies received no documentation that a review had in fact been 
conducted, even though in one of these cases the state had made 
requests for the review findings. Officials in one state said feedback 
from their last review was positive and indicated no problems, but a 
few years later, OATELS took steps to get their state apprenticeship 
council derecognized with no prior notice or subsequent review. 

Labor Has Not Collected Data That Would Allow for a National Picture of 
Apprenticeships: 

Labor collects aggregate counts of apprentices for most council- 
monitored states and has not developed strategies to collect more 
detailed information that would allow for a description of 
apprenticeships at the national level, even for those where shortages 
of skilled workers are anticipated. Of the 28 council-monitored states, 
20 have their own data system and do not report data to Labor's 
apprenticeship database. These 20 states represent about 68 percent of 
the nation's apprentices. Labor and council-monitored states have 
differing opinions about why there are separate data systems. Labor 
officials told us that, as they were developing their database, they 
conducted outreach to council-monitored states. Officials from these 
states say otherwise. They also said that participating in Labor's 
database would be an onerous process or that Labor's system did not 
meet their state's information needs and, therefore, they had invested 
the time and money to develop their own systems. Because many of these 
systems are not compatible with Labor's, the agency collects only total 
counts of apprentices and programs from these 20 states, which it uses 
for its official reports. 

While incompatible data systems may suggest that it would be difficult 
or costly to obtain more than aggregate counts, in collecting data for 
this report, we found many of the council-monitored states--including 
10 with large numbers of apprentices--were both willing and capable of 
providing us data on apprentices by industry and by occupation as well 
as information on completion rates, completion times, and some wage 
data for occupations that we had specified. In fact, one state reported 
that it had designed its apprenticeship database to collect all 
information required by Labor's database and had offered to report 
these data to Labor electronically--but Labor had not taken steps to 
accept this offer. Nevertheless, as one director pointed out, having a 
unified data picture is central to OATELS' oversight as well as its 
promotional activities and, as many agree, such a system would promote 
the health of the registered apprenticeship system. 

Construction Apprenticeship Completion Rates and Wages Vary by Program 
Sponsor: 

Construction apprentices in programs sponsored jointly by employers and 
unions (joint programs) generally completed at a higher rate and in 
greater numbers than those enrolled in programs sponsored by employers 
alone (non-joint programs). More importantly, despite growth in 
construction program enrollment, there has been a decline over time in 
completion rates for both types of programs. Completion rates declined 
from 59 percent for apprentices enrolling in 1994 to 37 percent for 
apprentices enrolling in 1998. It is difficult to know what factors 
underlie this trend because, as noted earlier, Labor does not 
systematically record information about why apprentices leave programs. 
Apprentices who completed programs within 6 years tended to finish 
earlier than expected. In addition, wages for joint apprentices were 
generally higher at the start and upon completion of their programs. 
Data received from 10 council-monitored states that do not report to 
Labor's database generally mirrored these findings. 

Nearly Half of Apprentices in Joint Programs Completed Their 
Apprenticeships Compared with about a Third in Non-joint Programs: 

Completion rates were generally higher for apprentices in joint 
programs than for those in non-joint programs. Of the apprentices who 
entered programs between 1994 and 1998, about 47 percent of apprentices 
in joint programs and 30 percent of apprentices in non-joint programs 
completed their apprenticeships by 2004. For five consecutive classes 
(1994-1998) of apprentices in Labor's database, completion rates 
calculated after 6 years, were higher for joint programs, as shown in 
figure 6.[Footnote 2] The data we received from 10 additional states 
that do not report into Labor's database showed similar trends, with 
joint apprentices having higher completion rates. For complete data 
that we received from these 10 states, see appendix II. 

Figure 6: Completion Rates after 6 Years for Apprentices Entering 
Construction Programs in FY 1994 through 1998: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

For the programs in Labor's database, this higher completion rate for 
joint apprenticeship programs was true for all but 1 of the 15 largest 
individual trades which collectively account for 93 percent of active 
apprentices in construction. (See fig. 7.) It should be noted that 
among the trades, themselves, there were substantial variations in 
completion rates, often due to the nature of work environment and other 
constraints, according to federal and state officials. For example, 
roofing programs, which have low completion rates, face unpredictable 
weather and seasonal work flows. 

Figure 7: Completion Rates after 6 Years by Occupation for Apprentices 
Who Began Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs between FY 1994 and 
1998: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Officials said that joint programs have higher completion rates because 
they are more established and better funded. For some joint programs, 
these additional resources stem in part from union members paying a 
small portion of their paychecks into a general training fund that is 
used to help defray some of the training costs for apprentices. In 
addition, they suggested that, because unions tend to have a network of 
affiliates spread across an area, they are more likely to find work for 
participating apprentices in other areas when work is slow in a 
particular area. Local union chapters often have portability agreements 
with one another other, which help to facilitate such transfers. 
Officials also said these programs provide mentoring and other social 
supports. 

While Enrollments Increased, Completion Rates Declined in General for 
the Period Examined: 

Enrollments in construction apprenticeship programs more than doubled 
from 1994 to 1998, increasing from 20,670 construction apprentices to 
47,487.[Footnote 3] (See fig. 8.) Meanwhile, completion rates declined 
from 59 percent for the class of 1994 to 37 percent for the class of 
1998[Footnote 4]. This decline for these cohorts held for both joint 
and non-joint programs. (See fig. 9.) Completion rates for joint 
apprentices dropped from nearly 63 percent to 42 percent, and from 46 
percent to 26 percent for non-joint apprentices. This trend was 
consistent across different occupations as well, with most experiencing 
declines. 

Figure 8: Enrollment for Apprentices in Joint and Non-joint 
Construction Programs, FY 1994 through 1998: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Figure 9: Trends in Completion Rates after 6 Years for Apprentices in 
Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs Entering Programs in FY 1994 
through 1998: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Because Labor does not systematically record the explanations that 
apprentices offer for canceling out of programs, it is difficult to 
determine what may lie behind this downward trend. Labor suggested that 
some apprentices may choose to acquire just enough training to make 
them marketable in the construction industry in lieu of completing a 
program and achieving journey status. While we cannot confirm this 
hypothesis, we did find that those apprentices who did cancel chose to 
do so after receiving over a year of training. Joint apprentices 
cancelled after 92 weeks on average and non-joint apprentices cancelled 
after 85 weeks on average. Other reasons offered included a decline in 
work ethic, the emphasis placed by high schools on preparing students 
for college and the corresponding under-emphasis on preparation for the 
trades, and a lack of work in the construction industry. We cannot 
verify the extent to which unemployment played a role influencing 
outcomes, but, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 
unemployment rate for construction increased overall from 6.2 percent 
to 8.4 percent between 2000 to 2004, despite the predictions of future 
worker shortages in construction. 

Apprentices in Both Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs Tended to 
Complete Their Programs Early: 

Those apprentices who completed construction programs within 6 years 
tended to finish earlier than they were expected to, with apprentices 
in non-joint programs finishing a bit sooner than their joint 
counterparts. On average, joint apprentices completed their programs 12 
weeks early and non-joint apprentices completed 35 weeks early. This 
trend was similar across the largest trades in terms of enrollment as 
shown in table 1 below. This may be due to the willingness of program 
sponsors to grant apprentices credit for previous work or classroom 
experience that was directly related to their apprenticeship 
requirements. 

Table 1: Differences between Actual and Expected Completion Time for 
Apprentices in Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs in Weeks: 

Electrician; 
Joint apprentices: Actual weeks to complete: 237; 
Joint apprentices: Expected weeks to complete: 240; 
Joint apprentices: Difference: 3 weeks early; 
Non-joint apprentices: Actual weeks to complete: 179; 
Non-joint apprentices: Expected weeks to complete: 211; 
Non-joint apprentices: Difference: 32 weeks early. 

Carpenter; 
Joint apprentices: Actual weeks to complete: 188; 
Joint apprentices: Expected weeks to complete: 210; 
Joint apprentices: Difference: 22 weeks early; 
Non-joint apprentices: Actual weeks to complete: 184; 
Non-joint apprentices: Expected weeks to complete: 208; 
Non-joint apprentices: Difference: 24 weeks early. 

Plumber; 
Joint apprentices: Actual weeks to complete: 238; 
Joint apprentices: Expected weeks to complete: 252; 
Joint apprentices: Difference: 14 weeks early; 
Non-joint apprentices: Actual weeks to complete: 171; 
Non-joint apprentices: Expected weeks to complete: 220; 
Non-joint apprentices: Difference: 49 weeks early. 

Source: GAO analysis of RAIS database. 

[End of table]

Starting Wages and Wages upon Completion in Joint Construction Programs 
Were Higher on Average than Those for Apprentices in Non-joint 
Construction Programs: 

Apprentices in joint construction programs were paid higher wages at 
the start of their apprenticeships and were scheduled to receive higher 
wages upon completion of their programs. In 2004, the first year in 
which Labor collected information on starting wages, apprentices in 
joint programs earned $12.28 per hour while non-joint apprentices 
earned $9.90 at the start of their apprenticeships. These differences 
in wages were more pronounced at the journey level, that is, upon 
completion, with apprentices in joint programs scheduled to earn 
journey-level wages of $24.19 as compared with $17.85 for those in non- 
joint programs. As shown in figure 10, joint apprentices generally 
earned higher wages across the 15 trades with the largest numbers of 
construction apprentices. There were three trades--carpenter, 
structural steel worker, and cement mason--for which starting wages 
were higher for non-joint apprentices. For journey-level wages there 
was only one trade for which wages were higher for non-joint 
apprentices--that of millwright. Officials we spoke with commonly 
attributed this distinction in wages to the bargaining process 
associated with joint programs. Data from the 10 additional states 
(outside Labor's database) whose data we examined showed a similar 
pattern--with joint apprentices earning higher wages. (See app. II.)

Figure 10: Average Wages for Apprentices in Joint and Non-Joint 
Construction Programs in FY 2004: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Conclusions: 

As a small program with finite resources tasked with an important 
mission, it is incumbent on Labor's Apprenticeship Office to leverage 
the tools at its disposal to carry out its oversight, all the more so 
during a period of tight budgets. Labor's responsibility for assuring 
that registered apprenticeship programs meet appropriate standards is 
no small charge, given the thousands of programs in operation today. In 
terms of the programs it directly monitors, Labor has not made optimal 
use of the information it collects to target resources. The failure to 
do so limits the agency's ability to target its oversight activities to 
address and remedy areas where there may be significant need, 
particularly the construction trades where completion rates are 
declining. Underscoring this point is the fact that apprenticeship 
directors in federally-monitored states cannot get easy access to the 
data in the form of customized reports. Irrespective of distinctions 
between apprentice outcomes for joint and non-joint programs, without 
better use of its data, Labor is still not in a position to assess 
programs on their individual merits. Given the relatively limited 
number of staff available for field visits, by not using the program 
data it has, Labor misses opportunities to more efficiently use its 
staff. 

With regard to states with council-monitored apprenticeship programs, 
Labor's oversight practices do not necessarily ensure that those 
states' activities comply with federal standards for oversight because 
the Apprenticeship Office has only sporadically assessed their 
operations. Moreover, to the extent that the federal office does not 
provide useful feedback to the states when it does conduct reviews, 
states may lose opportunities to improve programs under their 
jurisdiction. Finally, because Labor does not seek much information 
beyond aggregate numbers from a majority of council-monitored states, 
policymakers lose an opportunity to gain perspective and insight for 
aligning workforce training with national needs, specifically for key 
occupations within construction that are likely to be faced with 
shortages of skilled workers in the near future. 

Recommendations: 

We recommend that the Secretary of Labor take steps to (1) better 
utilize information in Labor's database, such as indicators of program 
performance, for management oversight, particularly for apprenticeship 
programs in occupations with expected future labor shortages; (2) 
develop a cost-effective strategy for collecting data from council- 
monitored states; (3) conduct Labor's reviews of apprenticeship 
activities in states that regulate their own programs on a regular 
basis to ensure that state activities are in accord with Labor's 
requirements for recognition of apprenticeship programs; and (4) offer 
substantive feedback to states from its reviews. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor for 
review and comment. Labor provided written comments on the draft report 
that are reproduced in appendix V. Labor concurred with our 
recommendations and has already taken steps to obtain data on 
apprenticeships from some council-monitored states and to regularly 
review activities in these states. Further, Labor stated it plans to 
use the data to better target the performance of the apprenticeship 
programs that OATELS directly registers and oversees, and to provide 
improved feedback to states that register and oversee their own 
apprenticeship programs. 

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further 
distribution of this report until 14 days after the date of this 
letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 
Secretary of Labor and other interested parties. We will also make 
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will 
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Please contact me on 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov if you or your staff 
have any questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this 
report are listed in appendix VI. 

Signed by: 

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

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which the U.S. 
Department of Labor monitors the operations and outcomes of registered 
apprenticeship programs in the states where it has direct oversight, 
(2) its oversight activities for council-monitored states, and (3) 
outcomes for construction apprentices in programs sponsored jointly by 
employers and unions in relation to those sponsored by employers alone. 

To carry out these objectives, we surveyed OATELS officials in charge 
of apprenticeship programs in 23 federally monitored states and state 
apprenticeship directors in 28 states, including the District of 
Columbia, where state apprenticeship councils oversee programs. We used 
two surveys--one for federally-monitored states and one for council- 
monitored states--to obtain national information on OATELS' monitoring 
and oversight activities. We focused only on apprentices in the 
civilian sector of the economy and did not include military or prison- 
based programs. We asked questions designed to determine the amount of 
resources devoted to oversight, the frequency of oversight activities, 
and the outcomes from these activities. The surveys were conducted 
using self-administered electronic questionnaires posted on the World 
Wide Web. We pretested our surveys with a total of five federally- 
monitored and council-monitored state officials to determine if the 
surveys were understandable and if the information was feasible to 
collect. We then refined the questionnaire as appropriate. We sent e- 
mail notifications to all federally-monitored and council-monitored 
state officials on January 5, 2005. We then sent each potential 
respondent a unique password and username by e-mail on January 13, 
2005, to ensure that only members of the target population could 
participate in the appropriate survey. To encourage respondents to 
complete the surveys, we sent e-mail messages to prompt each 
nonrespondent approximately 1½ weeks after the initial e-mail message 
and a final e-mail reminder on February 7, 2005. We also called 
nonrespondents to encourage them to complete the survey. We closed the 
surveys on March 18, 2005. We received responses from all 23 federally- 
monitored and 27 of 28 council-monitored state officials including the 
District of Columbia. (See table 2.) Copies of the surveys are provided 
in appendices III and IV. 

Table 2: Survey Numbers and Response Rates: 

Respondents: Federally-monitored states; 
Surveys conducted: 23; 
Surveys received: 23. 

Respondents: Council-monitored states and the District of Columbia; 
Surveys conducted: 28; 
Surveys received: 27. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table]

To examine the outcomes for apprentices in the construction industry, 
we analyzed data from Labor's RAIS database. In calculating completion 
rates, we constructed five cohorts based on when they enrolled in their 
programs; we had cohorts for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 
1998. We then considered the status of these cohorts 6 years after they 
enrolled to determine if they had completed, cancelled, or remained in 
training. Our analysis of wage data focused on data collected in fiscal 
year 2004, the first full year that Labor began collecting such 
information. We assessed the reliability of the RAIS database by 
reviewing relevant information on the database, interviewing relevant 
OATELS officials, and conducting our own testing of the database. This 
testing included examining the completeness of the data, performing 
data reliability checks, and assessing the internal controls of the 
data. Based on this information and our analysis, we determined that 
these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. 

Because Labor's RAIS database does not contain data from all states, we 
supplemented these data with data from 10 council-monitored states that 
do not report to this database. We selected these states based on the 
number of apprentices they had and whether their data were in an 
electronic format that would facilitate extracting and sending these 
data to us. We submitted a data request that asked for selected 
information on enrollment, completion, and wages for the 10 largest 
apprenticeship occupations to these states and received data from all 
of them. We determined that these data were reliable for our purposes. 
We did not combine these data with those from RAIS; we used them as a 
means of comparison. 

To learn more about the oversight of apprenticeship programs and their 
outcomes, we conducted site visits to four states--New York, 
California, Texas, and Washington. These states represented both 
federal and council-monitored states and had large numbers (from a high 
of about 52,000 to a low of 6,500) of construction apprentices. On 
these site visits, we interviewed relevant federal and state officials 
along with joint and non-joint program sponsors. We also toured 
facilities in two states where certain apprentices are trained. 

Throughout the engagement we interviewed relevant Labor officials and 
experts that have researched apprenticeship programs and reviewed 
relevant past reports and evaluations of these programs. We conducted 
our review from August 2004 through July 2005 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section]

Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken to Complete, and Wages for 
Construction Apprentices in Council-Monitored States: 

Table 3: Percentages of Apprentices Completing Joint and Non-joint 
Construction Programs as Reported by Selected Council-monitored States 
for Fiscal Years 1997-2004:

Electrician; 
California[A]: Joint: 48; 
California[A]: Non-joint: 32; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 60; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: 38; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: 52; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: 35; 
Massachusetts[D]: Joint: 63; 
Massachusetts[D]: Non-joint: 38; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: 77; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-Joint: 25; 
New York: Joint: 68; 
New York: Non-joint: 12; 
Oregon[E]: Joint: 65; 
Oregon[E]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[F]: Joint: 42; 
Virginia[F]: Non-joint: 20; 
Washington[G]: Joint: 62; 
Washington[G]: Non-joint: 38; 
Wisconsin[H]: Joint: 86; 
Wisconsin[H]: Non-joint: 90. 

Carpenter; 
California[A]: Joint: 22; 
California[A]: Non-joint: 12; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 20; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: 0; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: 26; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: 27; 
Massachusetts[D]: Joint: 48; 
Massachusetts[D]: Non-joint: 0; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: 20; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-Joint: 0; 
New York: Joint: 36; 
New York: Non-joint: 28; 
Oregon[E]: Joint: 20; 
Oregon[E]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[F]: Joint: 47; 
Virginia[F]: Non-joint: 16; 
Washington[G]: Joint: 32; 
Washington[G]: Non-joint: 21; 
Wisconsin[H]: Joint: 69; 
Wisconsin[H]: Non-joint: 55. 

Plumber; 
California[A]: Joint: 46; 
California[A]: Non-joint: 25; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 65; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: 67; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: 45; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: 10; 
Massachusetts[D]: Joint: 77; 
Massachusetts[D]: Non-joint: 25; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: 59; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-Joint: 20; 
New York: Joint: 53; 
New York: Non-joint: 15; 
Oregon[E]: Joint: 49; 
Oregon[E]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[F]: Joint: 67; 
Virginia[F]: Non-joint: 25; 
Washington[G]: Joint: 94; 
Washington[G]: Non-joint: 22; 
Wisconsin[H]: Joint: 75; 
Wisconsin[H]: Non-joint: 56. 

Pipe fitter; 
California[A]: Joint: 43; 
California[A]: Non-joint: 20; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 89; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: 0; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: 66; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: 0; 
Massachusetts[D]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-Joint: --.
New York: Joint: 90; 
New York: Non-joint: 13; 
Oregon[E]: Joint: 46; 
Oregon[E]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[F]: Joint: 58; 
Virginia[F]: Non-joint: 22; 
Washington[G]: Joint: 70; 
Washington[G]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin[H]: Joint: 82; 
Wisconsin[H]: Non-joint: 33.

Sheet metal worker; 
California[A]: Joint: 55; 
California[A]: Non-joint: 19; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 58; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: 0; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: 50; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: 56; 
Massachusetts[D]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-Joint: --.
New York: Joint: 70; 
New York: Non-joint: 0; 
Oregon[E]: Joint: 41; 
Oregon[E]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[F]: Joint: 10; 
Virginia[F]: Non-joint: 27; 
Washington[G]: Joint: 37; 
Washington[G]: Non-joint: 0; 
Wisconsin[H]: Joint: 63; 
Wisconsin[H]: Non-joint: 45.

Structural steel worker; 
California[A]: Joint: 35; 
California[A]: Non-joint: --; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 26; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: -- ; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: 33; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[D]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-Joint: --; 
New York: Joint: 61; 
New York: Non-joint: 0; 
Oregon[E]: Joint: 41; 
Oregon[E]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[F]: Joint: 50; 
Virginia[F]: Non-joint: 7; 
Washington[G]: Joint: 41; 
Washington[G]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin[H]: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin[H]: Non-joint: --. 

Bricklayer; 
California[A]: Joint: 28; 
California[A]: Non-joint: 0; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: --; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: 56; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: 37; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: 8; 
Massachusetts[D]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-Joint: --; 
New York: Joint: 37; 
New York: Non-joint: 11; 
Oregon[E]: Joint: 44; 
Oregon[E]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[F]: Joint: 16; 
Virginia[F]: Non-joint: 25; 
Washington[G]: Joint: 33; 
Washington[G]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin[H]: Joint: 51; 
Wisconsin[H]: Non-joint: 67.

Roofer; 
California[A]: Joint: 7; 
California[A]: Non-joint: 8; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 35; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: 0; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[D]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-Joint: --.
New York: Joint: 21; 
New York: Non-joint: 8; 
Oregon[E]: Joint: 5; 
Oregon[E]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[F]: Joint: --; 
Virginia[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Washington[G]: Joint: 6; 
Washington[G]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin[H]: Joint: 43; 
Wisconsin[H]: Non-joint: 0.

Painter; 
California[A]: Joint: 27; 
California[A]: Non-joint: 15; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 33; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: 18; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[D]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-Joint: --.
New York: Joint: 25; 
New York: Non-joint: 0; 
Oregon[E]: Joint: 25; 
Oregon[E]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[F]: Joint: --; 
Virginia[F]: Non-joint: 0; 
Washington[G]: Joint: 11; 
Washington[G]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin[H]: Joint: 47; 
Wisconsin[H]: Non-joint: 50.

Operating engineer; 
California[A]: Joint: 53; 
California[A]: Non-joint: 0; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 50; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: 47; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[D]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-Joint: --.
New York: Joint: 65; 
New York: Non-joint: 0; 
Oregon[E]: Joint: 29; 
Oregon[E]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[F]: Joint: 60; 
Virginia[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Washington[G]: Joint: 52; 
Washington[G]: Non-joint: 7; 
Wisconsin[H]: Joint: 81; 
Wisconsin[H]: Non-joint: --.

Source: Data were provided by selected council-monitored states.

Note: Data include apprentices entering program from October 1, 1997, 
through September 30, 1998, and completing before October 1, 2004.

[A] California reported no structural steel worker non-joint programs.

[B] Kentucky reported that no apprentices entered bricklayer joint 
programs or carpenter, structural steel worker, roofer, painter, and 
operating engineer non-joint programs from October 1, 1997, through 
September 30, 1998.

[C] Maryland reported that no apprentices entered structural steel 
worker, roofer, painter, and operating engineer non-joint programs from 
October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998.

[D] Massachusetts and Minnesota reported data for electrician, 
carpenter, and plumber programs only. We told state directors they 
could do this in order to save resources and because these three fields 
represent over half of all apprentices in the construction trades.

[E] Oregon reported that no non-joint apprenticeship programs are 
registered in the state.

[F] Virginia reported that no apprentices entered roofer and painter 
joint programs, and roofer and operating engineer non-joint programs 
from October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998.

[G] Washington reported no pipe fitter, structural steel worker, 
bricklayer, roofer, and painter non-joint programs.

[H] Wisconsin reported no structural steel worker joint or non-joint 
programs and no operating engineer non-joint programs.

[End of table]

Table 4: Average Number of Weeks Spent to Complete Joint and Non-joint 
Construction Apprenticeship Programs as Reported by Selected Council- 
monitored States:

Electrician; 
California[A]: Joint: 225; 
California[A]: Non-joint: 218; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 253; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: 177; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: 208; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-joint: 60; 
New York[E]: Joint: 290; 
New York[E]: Non-joint: 219; 
Oregon[F]: Joint: 205; 
Oregon[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[G]: Joint: 240; 
Virginia[G]: Non-joint: 166; 
Washington[H]: Joint: 233; 
Washington[H]: Non-joint: 209; 
Wisconsin[I]: Joint: 256; 
Wisconsin[I]: Non-joint: 264. 

Carpenter; 
California[A]: Joint: 188; 
California[A]: Non-joint: 140; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 219; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: 191; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-joint: --.
New York[E]: Joint: 165; 
New York[E]: Non-joint: 213; 
Oregon[F]: Joint: 176; 
Oregon[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[G]: Joint: 169; 
Virginia[G]: Non-joint: 234; 
Washington[H]: Joint: 201; 
Washington[H]: Non-joint: 184; 
Wisconsin[I]: Joint: 207; 
Wisconsin[I]: Non-joint: 204.

Plumber; 
California[A]: Joint: 232; 
California[A]: Non-joint: 203; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 247; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: 151; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: 213; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-joint: 85; 
New York[E]: Joint: 262; 
New York[E]: Non-joint: 247; 
Oregon[F]: Joint: 211; 
Oregon[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[G]: Joint: 254; 
Virginia[G]: Non-joint: 168; 
Washington[H]: Joint: 234; 
Washington[H]: Non-joint: 161; 
Wisconsin[I]: Joint: 274; 
Wisconsin[I]: Non-joint: 280. 

Pipe fitter; 
California[A]: Joint: 231; 
California[A]: Non-joint: 191; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 234; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-joint: --; 
New York[E]: Joint: 209; 
New York[E]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[F]: Joint: 198; 
Oregon[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[G]: Joint: 214; 
Virginia[G]: Non-joint: 201; 
Washington[H]: Joint: 247; 
Washington[H]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin[I]: Joint: 259; 
Wisconsin[I]: Non-joint: 216. 

Sheet metal worker; 
California[A]: Joint: 224; 
California[A]: Non-joint: 217; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 226; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-joint: --; 
New York[E]: Joint: 217; 
New York[E]: Non-joint: 52; 
Oregon[F]: Joint: 217; 
Oregon[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[G]: Joint: 214; 
Virginia[G]: Non-joint: 104; 
Washington[H]: Joint: 219; 
Washington[H]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin[I]: Joint: 264; 
Wisconsin[I]: Non-joint: 244. 

Structural steel worker; 
California[A]: Joint: 167; 
California[A]: Non-joint: --; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 156; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-joint: --; 
New York[E]: Joint: 162; 
New York[E]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[F]: Joint: 188; 
Oregon[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[G]: Joint: 154; 
Virginia[G]: Non-joint: 196; 
Washington[H]: Joint: 149; 
Washington[H]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin[I]: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin[I]: Non-joint: --.

Bricklayer; 
California[A]: Joint: 140; 
California[A]: Non-joint: --; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: --; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: 149; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-joint: --.
New York[E]: Joint: 155; 
New York[E]: Non-joint: 174; 
Oregon[F]: Joint: 171; 
Oregon[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[G]: Joint: 159; 
Virginia[G]: Non-joint: 215; 
Washington[H]: Joint: 161; 
Washington[H]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin[I]: Joint: 173; 
Wisconsin[I]: Non-joint: 139.

Roofer; 
California[A]: Joint: 192; 
California[A]: Non-joint: 188; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 184; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-joint: --.
New York[E]: Joint: 197; 
New York[E]: Non-joint: 174; 
Oregon[F]: Joint: 146; 
Oregon[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[G]: Joint: --; 
Virginia[G]: Non-joint: --; 
Washington[H]: Joint: 121; 
Washington[H]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin[I]: Joint: 165; 
Wisconsin[I]: Non-joint: ---.

Painter; 
California[A]: Joint: 152; 
California[A]: Non-joint: 119; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 234; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-joint: --.
New York[E]: Joint: 166; 
New York[E]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[F]: Joint: 164; 
Oregon[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[G]: Joint: --; 
Virginia[G]: Non-joint: --; 
Washington[H]: Joint: 115; 
Washington[H]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin[I]: Joint: 208; 
Wisconsin[I]: Non-joint: 157.

Operating engineer; 
California[A]: Joint: 183; 
California[A]: Non-joint: --; 
Kentucky[B]: Joint: 150; 
Kentucky[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[C]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[D]: Non-joint: --.
New York[E]: Joint: 194; 
New York[E]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[F]: Joint: 261; 
Oregon[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[G]: Joint: 149; 
Virginia[G]: Non-joint: --; 
Washington[H]: Joint: 198; 
Washington[H]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin[I]: Joint: 140; 
Wisconsin[I]: Non-joint: --.

Source: Data were provided by selected council-monitored states.

Note: Data include apprentices entering program from October 1, 1997, 
through September 30, 1998, and completing before October 1, 2004.

[A] California reported no structural steel worker non-joint programs 
and no completers from bricklayer and operating engineer non-joint 
programs.

[B] Kentucky reported that no apprentices entered bricklayer joint 
programs and carpenter, pipe fitter, structural steel, sheet metal 
worker, roofer, painter, and operating engineer non-joint programs from 
October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998.

[C] Maryland and Massachusetts do not track these data. 

[D] Minnesota reported data for electrician, carpenter, and plumber 
programs only and reported no completions for carpenters in non-joint 
programs. We told state directors they could report only for these 
three fields in order to save resources and because these three fields 
represent over half of all apprentices in the construction trades. 

[E] New York reported no completers for pipe fitter, structural steel 
worker, painter, and operating engineer non-joint programs. 

[F] Oregon reported no non-joint apprenticeship programs are registered 
in the state. 

[G] Virginia reported no apprentices entered roofer and painter joint 
programs and roofer, painter and operating engineer non-joint programs 
from October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998. 

[H] Washington reported no pipe fitter, structural steel worker, 
bricklayer, operating engineer and roofer non-joint programs. Also, no 
apprentices completed sheet metal worker and painter non-joint 
programs. 

[I] Wisconsin reported no structural steel worker programs and no 
roofer and operating engineer non-joint programs. 

[End of table]

Table 5: Mean Hourly Wage Rates for Beginning Apprentices in Joint and 
Non-joint Construction Programs as Reported by Selected Council- 
monitored States, Fiscal Year 2004: 

Electrician; 
California[A]: Joint: $13.50; 
California[A]: Non-joint: $12.28; 
Kentucky: Joint: $9.31; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $6.41; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: ---; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: $11.81; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: $11.06; 
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $9.81; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: $9.50; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: $8.08; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $11.64; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: $11.38; 
Wisconsin[B]: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin[B]: Non-joint: --. 

Carpenter; 
California[A]: Joint: $15.16; 
California[A]: Non-joint: $14.11; 
Kentucky: Joint: $8.05; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $8.31; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: $13.46; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: $9.63; 
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $11.03; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: $8.22; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: $9.68; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $14.67; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: $12.67; 
Wisconsin[B]: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin[B]: Non-joint: --. 

Plumber; 
California[A]: Joint: $13.82; 
California[A]: Non-joint: $12.85; 
Kentucky: Joint: $12.14; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $7.54; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: $14.69; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: $14.36; 
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $9.68; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: $8.70; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: $8.59; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $12.67; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: $10.63; 
Wisconsin[B]: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin[B]: Non-joint: --. 

Pipe fitter; 
California[A]: Joint: $11.80; 
California[A]: Non-joint: $13.10; 
Kentucky: Joint: $12.14; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $7.08; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: --; 
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $11.03; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: $9.75; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: $9.36; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $13.64; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: ---; 
Wisconsin[B]: Joint: -- ; 
Wisconsin[B]: Non-joint: --. 

Sheet metal worker; 
California[A]: Joint: $12.64; 
California[A]: Non-joint: $10.85; 
Kentucky: Joint: $11.79; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $7.08; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: --; 
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $8.83; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: $9.43; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: $8.05; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $13.11; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: $7.61; 
Wisconsin[B]: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin[B]: Non-joint: --.

Structural steel worker; 
California[A]: Joint: $17.24; 
California[A]: Non-joint: --; 
Kentucky: Joint: $13.56; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $7.08; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: --.
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $18.51; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: $9.49; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: --; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $17.74; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin[B]: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin[B]: Non-joint: --.

Bricklayer; 
California[A]: Joint: $11.22; 
California[A]: Non-joint: $11.40; 
Kentucky: Joint: $10.59; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $9.82; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: --.
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $13.35; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: $8.02; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: $9.47; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $12.62; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin[B]: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin[B]: Non-joint: --.

Roofer; 
California[A]: Joint: $11.90; 
California[A]: Non-joint: $10.96; 
Kentucky: Joint: $10.12; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $7.08; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: --.
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $10.03; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: $7.44; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $13.28; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin[B]: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin[B]: Non-joint: --.

Painter; 
California[A]: Joint: $11.31; 
California[A]: Non-joint: $10.63; 
Kentucky: Joint: $9.86; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $8.00; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: --.
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $11.26; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: $10.95; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $11.50; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: $8.33; 
Wisconsin[B]: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin[B]: Non-joint: --.

Operating engineer; 
California[A]: Joint: $20.30; 
California[A]: Non-joint: $18.42; 
Kentucky: Joint: $12.50; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $7.08; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: --.
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $17.43; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: $10.99; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: $8.08;  
Washington[F]: Joint: $15.95; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: $15.37; 
Wisconsin[B]: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin[B]: Non-joint: --.

Source: Data were provided by selected council-monitored states.

Note: Data includes wages for apprentices who began programs on October 
1, 2003, through September 30, 2004.

[A] California reported no structural steel worker non-joint programs.

[B] Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin do not collect 
wage data.

[C] Minnesota reported data for electrician, carpenter, and plumber 
programs only. We told state directors they could do this in order to 
save resources and because these three fields represent over half of 
all apprentices in the construction trades.

[D] Oregon reported no non-joint apprenticeship programs are registered 
in the state.

[E] Virginia reported no roofer joint programs and no operating 
engineer non-joint programs. Also, no apprentices entered painter joint 
programs and structural steel worker non-joint programs that year.

[F] Washington reported no pipe fitter, structural steel worker, 
bricklayer, painter, and roofer non-joint programs as of September 30, 
2004.

[End of table]

Table 6: Mean Hourly Wage Rates for Apprentices Achieving Journey 
Status in Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs as Reported by 
Selected Council-monitored States, Fiscal Year 2004:

Electrician; 
California[A]: Joint: $34.98; 
California[A]: Non-joint: $30.35; 
Kentucky: Joint: $20.74; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $12.81; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: $26.62; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: $25.31; 
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $23.57; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: $16.54; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: $13.34; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $24.38; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: $28.46; 
Wisconsin: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin: Non-joint: --. 

Carpenter; 
California[A]: Joint: $32.45; 
California[A]: Non-joint: $32.48; 
Kentucky: Joint: $16.57; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $15.00; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: $23.20; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: $29.38; 
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $20.06; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: $11.39; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: $10.73; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $24.46; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: $22.04; 
Wisconsin: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin: Non-joint: --. 

Plumber; 
California[A]: Joint: $31.80; 
California[A]: Non-joint: $30.91; 
Kentucky: Joint: $24.28; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $14.00; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: $32.65; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: $30.56; 
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $23.38; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: $17.15; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: $14.47; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $26.68; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: $26.52; 
Wisconsin: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin: Non-joint: --. 

Pipe fitter; 
California[A]: Joint: $32.40; 
California[A]: Non-joint: -- ; 
Kentucky: Joint: $24.28; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $12.00; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: --; 
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $25.46; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: $17.38; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: $13.53; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $27.07; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin: Non-joint: --. 

Sheet metal worker; 
California[A]: Joint: $32.50; 
California[A]: Non-joint: $31.98; 
Kentucky: Joint: $23.58; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $12.00; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: --; 
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $19.74; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: $14.85; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: $11.15; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $25.58; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: $18.12; 
Wisconsin: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin: Non-joint: --.

Structural steel worker; 
California[A]: Joint: $31.35; 
California[A]: Non-joint: ---; 
Kentucky: Joint: $22.68; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $12.00; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: --.
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $28.47; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: $13.87; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: -; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $27.30; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin: Non-joint: --.

Bricklayer; 
California[A]: Joint: $29.97; 
California[A]: Non-joint: $30.28; 
Kentucky: Joint: $21.17; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $16.98; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: --.
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $26.70; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: $14.75; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: $18.62; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $25.23; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin: Non-joint: --.

Roofer; 
California[A]: Joint: $25.92; 
California[A]: Non-joint: $24.89; 
Kentucky: Joint: $18.40; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $12.00; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: --.
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $19.42; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: ---; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $22.14; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: --; 
Wisconsin: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin: Non-joint: --.

Painter; 
California[A]: Joint: $30.98; 
California[A]: Non-joint: $29.08; 
Kentucky: Joint: $17.20; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $16.00; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: --.
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $18.77; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: ---; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $20.44; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: $18.51; 
Wisconsin: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin: Non-joint: --.

Operating engineer; 
California[A]: Joint: $34.34; 
California[A]: Non-joint: ---; 
Kentucky: Joint: $21.03; 
Kentucky: Non-joint: $12.00; 
Maryland[B]: Joint: --; 
Maryland[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Joint: --; 
Massachusetts[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Joint: --; 
Minnesota[C]: Non-joint: --.
New York[B]: Joint: --; 
New York[B]: Non-joint: --; 
Oregon[D]: Joint: $22.67; 
Oregon[D]: Non-joint: --; 
Virginia[E]: Joint: $18.73; 
Virginia[E]: Non-joint: --; 
Washington[F]: Joint: $25.52; 
Washington[F]: Non-joint: $25.63; 
Wisconsin: Joint: --; 
Wisconsin: Non-joint: --.

Source: Data were provided by selected council-monitored states.

Note: Data include wages for apprentices who achieved journey status 
that year.

[A] California reported no structural steel worker non-joint programs. 
Also, no apprentices completed pipe fitter and operating engineer non-
joint programs that year.

[B] Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin do not collect 
wage data.

[C] Minnesota reported data for electrician, carpenter, and plumber 
programs only. We told state directors they could do this in order to 
save resources and because these three fields represent over half of 
all apprentices in the construction trades.

[D] Oregon reported no non-joint apprenticeship programs are registered 
in the state.

[E] Virginia reported no roofer and painter joint programs, and no 
roofer, painter, and operating engineer non-joint programs, and no 
apprentices completed joint painter and non-joint structural steel 
worker programs as of September 30, 2004.

[F] Washington reported no pipe fitter, structural steel worker, 
bricklayer, and roofer non-joint programs as of September 30, 2004.

[End of table] 

[End of section]

Appendix III: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in 
Federally-Monitored States: 

Q1. At the close of federal fiscal year (FFY) 2004 (September 30, 
2004), what was the total number of registered apprentices in your 
state?

Mean: 4,792; 
Median: 3437; 
Minimum: 271; 
Maximum: 20,496; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

[End of table]

Q1a. At the close of FFY 2004, what was the total number of registered 
apprentices in construction trades in your state?

Mean: 3,057; 
Median: 2226; 
Minimum: 207; 
Maximum: 10,396; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

[End of table]

Q1b. At the close of FFY 2004, what was the total number of approved 
apprenticeship programs in construction trades in your state?

Mean: 169; 
Median: 84; 
Minimum: 22; 
Maximum: 844; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

[End of table]

Q2. During FFY 2004, how many full-time equivalency (FTE) 
apprenticeship training staff were employed by OATELS to monitor and 
oversee apprenticeship programs in your state?

Mean: 3; 
Median: 2; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 6; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

[End of table]

Q3. Of the FTE apprenticeship training staff reported above, 
approximately what percentage of their time was spent in the field 
monitoring and overseeing apprenticeship programs or providing 
technical assistance related to monitoring and oversight during FFY 
2004?

0 - 19%: 5; 
20 - 39%: 6; 
40 - 59%: 5; 
60 - 79%: 4; 
80 - 100%: 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

[End of table]

Q4. During FFY 2004, how many full-time equivalency (FTE) 
apprenticeship training representative, field, and other 
nonadministrative staff were employed by the state to monitor and 
oversee apprenticeship programs in your state?

Mean: 0; 
Median: 0; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 2; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

[End of table]

Q6. In your opinion, would the following updates or modifications 
improve Registered Apprenticeship Information System's (RAIS) 
usefulness to your state?

a. Increasing timeliness of notifying state and regional offices of 
changes to RAIS; 
Yes: 22; 
No: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

b. Increasing available coding options to explain why apprentices leave 
the programs; 
Yes: 14; 
No: 7; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

c. Allowing production of customized state or regional reports by 
sponsorship type; 
Yes: 17; 
No: 2; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

d. Allowing production of customized state or regional reports by 
industry type; 
Yes: 18; 
No: 1; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

e. Allowing production of customized state or regional reports by 
occupational type; 
Yes: 17; 
No: 2; 
Don't know: 3; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

f. Allowing production of customized state or regional reports by sex 
of apprentices; 
Yes: 14; 
No: 1; 
Don't know: 8; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

g. Allowing production of customized state or regional reports by race 
of apprentices; 
Yes: 14; 
No: 1; 
Don't know: 8; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

h. Simplifying instructions and procedures for inputting and updating 
data; 
Yes: 16; 
No: 6; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

i. Simplifying procedures required to produce reports; 
Yes: 18; 
No: 3; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

j. Increasing frequency of RAIS training; 
Yes: 17; 
No: 1; 
Don't know: 5; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

k. Improving quality of RAIS training; 
Yes: 16; 
No: 3; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

l. Other; 
Yes: 9; 
No: 0; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of respondents: 11. 

[End of table]

Q8. Did your state use WIA Governor's 15% State Set-Aside funds to 
support new and/or established apprenticeship programs in FFY 2004?

Yes: 3; 
No: 15; 
Don't know: 5; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

[End of table]

Q9. Were WIA State Set-Aside funds used to support new and/or 
established apprenticeship programs in your state in FFY 2004 to do any 
of the following?

a. To provide related instruction or other education that satisfied 
specific apprenticeship requirements; 
Yes, new apprenticeship programs: 1; 
Yes, established apprenticeship programs: 2; 
No: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 3. 

b. To provide on-the-job training; 
Yes, new apprenticeship programs: 0; 
Yes, established apprenticeship programs: 0; 
No: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 1. 

c. To disseminate information about apprenticeship programs; 
Yes, new apprenticeship programs: 0; 
Yes, established apprenticeship programs: 1; 
No: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 1. 

d. To encourage entities to sponsor and register additional or new 
programs; 
Yes, new apprenticeship programs: 1; 
Yes, established apprenticeship programs: 0; 
No: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

e. Other; 
Yes, new apprenticeship programs: 1; 
Yes, established apprenticeship programs: 0; 
No: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 1. 

[End of table]

Q11. For which of the following reasons did your state not use WIA Set- 
Aside Funds to support apprenticeship programs in FFY 2004?

a. Decision-makers gave priority to other programs; 
Yes: 11; 
No: 0; 
Don't know: 6; 
Number of respondents: 17. 

b. Decision-makers did not believe funds could be used to support new 
apprenticeship programs; 
Yes: 7; 
No: 2; 
Don't know: 8; 
Number of respondents: 17. 

c. Decision-makers did not believe funds could be used to support 
established apprenticeship programs; 
Yes: 7; 
No: 2; 
Don't know: 7; 
Number of respondents: 16. 

d. Decision-makers did not believe funds could be used to provide 
related instruction or other education that satisfied specific 
apprenticeship requirements; 
Yes: 6; 
No: 2; 
Don't know: 9; 
Number of respondents: 17. 

e. Decision-makers did not believe funds could be used to provide on- 
the-job training; 
Yes: 6; 
No: 3; 
Don't know: 8; 
Number of respondents: 17. 

f. Decision-makers did not believe funds could be used to disseminate 
information about apprenticeship programs; 
Yes: 5; 
No: 2; 
Don't know: 10; 
Number of respondents: 17. 

g. Decision-makers did not believe funds could be used to encourage the 
recruitment of entities to sponsor and register new programs; 
Yes: 6; 
No: 1; 
Don't know: 10; 
Number of respondents: 17. 

h. Decision-makers did not establish linkages between the state 
apprenticeship unit and unit(s) responsible for WIA; 
Yes: 11; 
No: 2; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of respondents: 17. 

i. Other; 
Yes: 8; 
No: 0; 
Don't know: 3; 
Number of respondents: 11. 

[End of table]

Q13. Were WIA funding sources other than State Set-Aside Funds used in 
your state to support new and/or established apprenticeship programs in 
FFY 2004?

Yes: 4; 
No: 12; 
Don't know: 6; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

[End of table]

Q14. Other than State Set-Aside Funds, which of the following WIA 
funding sources were used to support new and/or established 
apprenticeship programs in FFY 2004?

a. Adult Funds; 
Yes, new programs: 1; 
Yes, established programs: 1; 
No: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 4. 

b. Dislocated Worker Funds; 
Yes, new programs: 0; 
Yes, established programs: 1; 
No: 1; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of respondents: 4. 

c. Youth Funds; 
Yes, new programs: 0; 
Yes, established programs: 0; 
No: 2; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of respondents: 4. 

d. Other; 
Yes, new programs: 0; 
Yes, established programs: 2; 
No: 0; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 3. 

[End of table]

Q16. Did your state establish linkages between WIA state unit and the 
state apprenticeship unit in FFY 2004 for any of the following purposes?

a. Shared decision making; 
Yes: 0; 
No: 18; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

b. Shared information gathering; 
Yes: 4; 
No: 14; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

c. Shared information dissemination, including presentations; 
Yes: 7; 
No: 11; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

d. Shared use of educational programs that satisfy specific 
apprenticeship requirements; 
Yes: 2; 
No: 15; 
Don't know: 5; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

e. Shared grant development activities; 
Yes: 4; 
No: 13; 
Don't know: 6; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

f. Other; 
Yes: 7; 
No: 2; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of respondents: 13. 

[End of table]

Q19. How often does your unit conduct formalized Quality Reviews of 
individual apprenticeship programs that address on-the-job training, 
related instruction, and/or program operations in your state?

Less frequently than every three years: 7; 
Once every three years: 2; 
Once every two years: 6; 
Once a year: 3; 
Twice a year: 0; 
More than twice a year: 3; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

[End of table]

Q21. Approximately how many Quality Reviews did your unit conduct in 
FFY 2004? (Click in the box and then enter up to a 4-digit whole number 
only.) 

Mean: 17; 
Median: 10; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 67; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

[End of table]

Q22. To what extent, if at all, did your state find the FFY 2004 
Quality Reviews useful for the following purposes?

a. Making informed decisions about the administration and operation of 
apprenticeship programs; 
Very great extent: 2; 
Great extent: 8; 
Moderate extent: 5; 
Some extent: 5; 
Little or no extent (Please specify in Question 24): 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

b. Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of apprenticeship programs 
in your state; 
Very great extent: 4; 
Great extent: 8; 
Moderate extent: 4; 
Some extent: 3; 
Little or no extent (Please specify in Question 24): 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

c. Assessing how well the programs comply with federal regulations; 
Very great extent: 3; 
Great extent: 10; 
Moderate extent: 3; 
Some extent: 2; 
Little or no extent (Please specify in Question 24): 3; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

d. Completing reports about your state's apprenticeship program; 
Very great extent: 1; 
Great extent: 7; 
Moderate extent: 5; 
Some extent: 3; 
Little or no extent (Please specify in Question 24): 4; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

e. Other; 
Very great extent: 1; 
Great extent: 3; 
Moderate extent: 0; 
Some extent: 2; 
Little or no extent (Please specify in Question 24): 3; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of respondents: 13. 

[End of table]

Q26. How often does your unit conduct formalized Equal Employment 
Opportunity (EEO) Reviews of individual apprenticeship programs?

Less frequently than every three years: 8; 
Once every three years: 3; 
Once every two years: 6; 
Once a year: 2; 
Twice a year: 0; 
More than twice a year: 3; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

[End of table]

Q28. Approximately how many EEO Reviews did your unit conduct in FFY 
2004? (Click in the box and then enter up to a 4-digit whole number 
only.) 

Mean: 10; 
Median: 8; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 35; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

[End of table]

Q29. To what extent, if at all, did your state find the FFY 2004 EEO 
Reviews useful for the following purposes?

a. Making informed decisions about the administration and operation of 
apprenticeship programs in your state; 
Very great extent: 4; 
Great extent: 9; 
Moderate extent: 3; 
Some extent: 3; 
Little or no extent (Please specify in Question 31): 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

b. Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of apprenticeship programs 
in your state; 
Very great extent: 6; 
Great extent: 10; 
Moderate extent: 2; 
Some extent: 2; 
Little or no extent (Please specify in Question 31): 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

c. Assessing how well the programs comply with federal regulations; 
Very great extent: 7; 
Great extent: 8; 
Moderate extent: 4; 
Some extent: 2; 
Little or no extent (Please specify in Question 31): 0; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

d. Completing reports about the state's apprenticeship programs; 
Very great extent: 1; 
Great extent: 8; 
Moderate extent: 7; 
Some extent: 2; 
Little or no extent (Please specify in Question 31): 2; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

e. Other; 
Very great extent: 3; 
Great extent: 0; 
Moderate extent: 0; 
Some extent: 1; 
Little or no extent (Please specify in Question 31): 2; 
Don't know: 5; 
Number of respondents: 11. 

[End of table]

Q33. Did your state have procedures or policies for recording 
complaints filed in FFY 2004 that were elevated to the level of the 
state or regional OATELS office?

Yes: 18; 
No: 3; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

[End of table]

Q34a1. In your state, how many total complaints were referred to state 
officials in FFY 2004?

Mean: 2; 
Median: 1; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 10; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

[End of table]

Q34a2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate: 

Check here if actual; 
Count: 12; 
Number of respondents: 19. 

Check here if estimate; 
Count: 7; 
Number of respondents: 19. 

Check here if do not know or cannot estimate; 
Count: 0; 
Number of respondents: 19. 

[End of table]

Q34b1. How many complaints concerned termination in FFY 2004?

Mean: 1; 
Median: 0; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 8; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

[End of table]

Q34b2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate: 

Check here if actual; 
Count: 12; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

Check here if estimate; 
Count: 6; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

Check here if do not know or cannot estimate; 
Count: 0; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

[End of table]

Q34c1. How many complaints concerned discrimination in FFY 2004?

Mean: 0; 
Median: 0; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 5; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

[End of table]

Q34c2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate: 

Check here if actual; 
Count: 13; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

Check here if estimate; 
Count: 5; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

Check here if do not know or cannot estimate; 
Count: 0; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

[End of table]

Q34d1. How many complaints concerned wages in FFY 2004?

Mean: 0; 
Median: 0; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 2; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

[End of table]

Q34d2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate: 

Check here if actual; 
Count: 13; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

Check here if estimate; 
Count: 5; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

Check here if do not know or cannot estimate; 
Count: 0; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

[End of table]

Q34e1. How many complaints concerned related instruction in FFY 2004?

Mean: 0; 
Median: 0; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 3; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

[End of table]

Q34e2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate: 

Check here if actual; 
Count: 13; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

Check here if estimate; 
Count: 5; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

Check here if do not know or cannot estimate; 
Count: 0; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

[End of table]

Q34f1. How many complaints concerned on-the-job training in FFY 2004?

Mean: 0; 
Median: 0; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 4; 
Number of respondents: 20. 

[End of table]

Q34f2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate: 

Check here if actual; 
Count: 12; 
Number of respondents: 16. 

Check here if estimate; 
Count: 4; 
Number of respondents: 16. 

Check here if do not know or cannot estimate; 
Count: 0; 
Number of respondents: 16. 

[End of table]

Q34g1. How many complaints concerned other issues in FFY 2004?

Mean: 1; 
Median: 0; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 5; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

[End of table]

Q34g2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate: 

Check here if actual; 
Count: 13; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

Check here if estimate; 
Count: 5; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

Check here if do not know or cannot estimate; 
Count: 0; 
Number of respondents: 18. 

[End of table]

Q36. Which of the following were sources of data used to answer the 
prior questions about complaints regarding apprenticeship programs in 
FFY 2004?

Electronic statewide system; 
Yes: 3; 
No: 12; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 16. 

Centralized listing, log, or other paper compilation; 
Yes: 6; 
No: 10; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 17. 

Manual search of files; 
Yes: 7; 
No: 8; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 15. 

Other; 
Yes: 3; 
No: 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in 
Council-Monitored States: 

Q2. At the close of your state's FY 2004, what was the total number of 
registered apprentices in your state?

Mean: 8,949; 
Median: 4748; 
Minimum: 689; 
Maximum: 72,920; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

[End of table]

Q2a. At the close of your state's FY 2004, what was the total number of 
registered apprentices in construction trades in your state?

Mean: 6,287; 
Median: 4052; 
Minimum: 323; 
Maximum: 52,277; 
Number of respondents: 26. 

[End of table]

Q2b. At the close of your state's FY 2004, what was the total number of 
approved apprenticeship programs in construction trades in your state?

Mean: 308; 
Median: 225; 
Minimum: 28; 
Maximum: 1,320; 
Number of respondents: 26. 

[End of table]

Q3. During state FY 2004, how many full-time equivalency (FTE) 
apprenticeship training staff were employed by your apprentice unit to 
monitor and oversee apprenticeship programs in your state?

Mean: 7; 
Median: 4; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 32; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

[End of table]

Q4. Of the FTE apprenticeship training staff reported above, 
approximately what percentage of their time was spent in the field 
monitoring and overseeing apprenticeship or providing technical 
assistance related to monitoring or oversight during state FY2004?

0 - 19%: 4; 
20 - 39%: 5; 
40 - 59%: 7; 
60 - 79%: 6; 
80 - 100%: 5; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

[End of table]

Q5. Do you have a BAT agency in your state?

Yes: 20; 
No: 7; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

[End of table]

Q6. During state FY 2004, how many full-time equivalency (FTE) 
apprenticeship training staff were employed by the BAT agency in your 
state to monitor and oversee apprenticeship programs in your state?

Mean: 2; 
Median: 1; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 10; 
Number of respondents: 19. 

[End of table]

Q8. How often does your OATELS conduct SAC 29/29 Review (Review of 
Labor Standards for Registration of Apprenticeship Programs) in your 
state?

Less frequently than every three years: 12; 
Once every three years: 5; 
Once every two years: 3; 
Once a year: 2; 
Twice a year: 0; 
More than twice a year: 0; 
Don't know: 5; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

[End of table]

Q10. To what extent did your state find OATELS' most recent SAC 29/29 
Review (Review of Labor Standards for Registration of Apprenticeship 
Programs) useful for the following purposes in your state?

a. Making informed decisions about the administration and operation of 
apprenticeship programs; 
Very great extent: 2; 
Great extent: 3; 
Moderate extent: 5; 
Some extent: 4; 
Little or no extent: 6; 
Don't know: 7; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

b. Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of apprenticeship programs 
in your state; 
Very great extent: 2; 
Great extent: 4; 
Moderate extent: 2; 
Some extent: 5; 
Little or no extent: 7; 
Don't know: 7; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

c. Assessing how well the programs comply with federal regulations; 
Very great extent: 3; 
Great extent: 6; 
Moderate extent: 2; 
Some extent: 3; 
Little or no extent: 6; 
Don't know: 7; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

d. Completing reports about your state's apprenticeship program; 
Very great extent: 1; 
Great extent: 1; 
Moderate extent: 3; 
Some extent: 6; 
Little or no extent: 8; 
Don't know: 8; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

e. Other; 
Very great extent: 2; 
Great extent: 0; 
Moderate extent: 1; 
Some extent: 1; 
Little or no extent: 1; 
Don't know: 9; 
Number of respondents: 14. 

[End of table]

Q15. How often does OATELS conduct SAC 29/30 Review (Review of Equal 
Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training) in your state?

Less frequently than every three years: 12; 
Once every three years: 5; 
Once every two years: 3; 
Once a year: 2; 
Twice a year: 0; 
More than twice a year: 0; 
Don't know: 5; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

[End of table]

Q17. To what extent, if at all, did your state find OATELS' most recent 
SAC 29/30 Review (Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and 
Training) useful for the following purposes?

a. Making informed decisions about the administration and operation of 
apprenticeship programs; 
Very great extent: 2; 
Great extent: 2; 
Moderate extent: 6; 
Some extent: 3; 
Little or no extent: 5; 
Don't know: 9; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

b. Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of apprenticeship programs 
in your state; 
Very great extent: 1; 
Great extent: 3; 
Moderate extent: 5; 
Some extent: 4; 
Little or no extent: 5; 
Don't know: 9; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

c. Assessing how well the programs comply with federal regulations; 
Very great extent: 2; 
Great extent: 6; 
Moderate extent: 4; 
Some extent: 2; 
Little or no extent: 4; 
Don't know: 9; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

d. Completing reports about your state's apprenticeship program; 
Very great extent: 1; 
Great extent: 0; 
Moderate extent: 5; 
Some extent: 6; 
Little or no extent: 5; 
Don't know: 10; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

e. Other; 
Very great extent: 1; 
Great extent: 0; 
Moderate extent: 0; 
Some extent: 1; 
Little or no extent: 2; 
Don't know: 4; 
Number of respondents: 8. 

[End of table]

Q21. Does your state presently use OATELS' Registered Apprenticeship 
Information System (RAIS) to register apprentices and to track 
apprentice and program information?

Yes: 6; 
No: 21; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

[End of table]

Q23. Does you state plan or intend to use RAIS to register apprentices 
and track apprenticeship and program information in the future ?

Yes: 7; 
No: 12; 
Don't know: 5; 
Number of respondents: 24. 

[End of table]

Q26. Did your state use the WIA Governor's 15% State Set-Aside funds to 
support new and/or established apprenticeship programs in state FY 2004?

Yes: 7; 
No: 20; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

[End of table]

Q27. Were WIA State Set-Aside funds used to support new and/or 
established apprenticeship programs in your state in state FY 2004 to 
do any of the following?

a. To provide related instruction or other education that satisfied 
specific apprenticeship requirements; 
Yes, new apprenticeship programs: 4; 
Yes, established apprenticeship programs: 1; 
No: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 7. 

b. To provide on-the-job training; 
Yes, new apprenticeship programs: 2; 
Yes, established apprenticeship programs: 1; 
No: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

c. To disseminate information about apprenticeship programs; 
Yes, new apprenticeship programs: 4; 
Yes, established apprenticeship programs: 0; 
No: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 7. 

d. To encourage entities to sponsor and register additional or new 
programs; 
Yes, new apprenticeship programs: 2; 
Yes, established apprenticeship programs: 1; 
No: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

e. Other; 
Yes, new apprenticeship programs: 2; 
Yes, established apprenticeship programs: 2; 
No: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 5. 

[End of table]

Q29. For which of the following reasons did your state not use WIA Set- 
Aside Funds to support apprenticeship programs in state FY 2004?

a. Decision-makers gave priority to other programs; 
Yes: 10; 
No: 5; 
Don't know: 7; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

b. Decision-makers did not believe funds could be used to support new 
apprenticeship programs; 
Yes: 8; 
No: 4; 
Don't know: 10; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

c. Decision-makers did not believe funds could be used to support 
established apprenticeship programs; 
Yes: 8; 
No: 4; 
Don't know: 10; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

d. Decision-makers did not believe funds could be used to provide 
related instruction or other education that satisfied specific 
apprenticeship requirements; 
Yes: 5; 
No: 5; 
Don't know: 12; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

e. Decision-makers did not believe funds could be used to provide on- 
the-job training; 
Yes: 4; 
No: 7; 
Don't know: 11; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

f. Decision-makers did not believe funds could be used to disseminate 
information about apprenticeship programs; 
Yes: 3; 
No: 6; 
Don't know: 13; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

g. Decision-makers did not believe funds could be used to encourage the 
recruitment of entities to sponsor and register new programs; 
Yes: 5; 
No: 6; 
Don't know: 11; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

h. Decision-makers did not establish linkages between the state 
apprenticeship unit and unit(s) responsible for WIA; 
Yes: 9; 
No: 9; 
Don't know: 5; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

i. Other; 
Yes: 2; 
No: 2; 
Don't know: 3; 
Number of respondents: 7. 

[End of table]

Q31. Were WIA funding sources other than State Set-Aside Funds used in 
your state to support new and/or established apprenticeship programs in 
state FY 2004?

Yes: 7; 
No: 17; 
Don't know: 3; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

[End of table]

Q32. Other than State Set-Aside Funds, which of the following WIA 
funding sources were used to support new and/or established 
apprenticeship programs in state FY 2004?

a. Adult Funds; 
Yes, new programs: 1; 
Yes, established programs: 4; 
No: 0; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

b. Dislocated Worker Funds; 
Yes, new programs: 0; 
Yes, established programs: 5; 
No: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 7. 

c. Youth Funds; 
Yes, new programs: 2; 
Yes, established programs: 1; 
No: 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

d. Other; 
Yes, new programs: 0; 
Yes, established programs: 1; 
No: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 3. 

[End of table]

Q34. Did your state establish linkages between WIA and the state 
apprenticeship unit in state FY 2004 for any of the following purposes?

a. Shared decision making; 
Yes: 7; 
No: 17; 
Don't know: 2; 
Number of respondents: 26. 

b. Shared information gathering; 
Yes: 15; 
No: 10; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 26. 

c. Shared information dissemination, including presentations; 
Yes: 14; 
No: 13; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

d. Shared use of educational programs that satisfy specific 
apprenticeship requirements; 
Yes: 6; 
No: 17; 
Don't know: 3; 
Number of respondents: 26. 

e. Shared grant development activities; 
Yes: 5; 
No: 18; 
Don't know: 3; 
Number of respondents: 26. 

f. Other; 
Yes: 1; 
No: 4; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

[End of table]

Q37. Did your state have a mechanism for conducting formalized reviews 
of apprenticeship programs that address on-the-job training, related 
instruction, and/or program operations in state FY 2004?

Yes: 25; 
No: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 25. 

[End of table]

Q38. Which of the following components --on-the-job training, related 
instruction, and/or program operations --were included in these reviews?

a. Currency of on-the-job training with acceptable industry practice; 
Yes: 22; 
No: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 25. 

b. Relative continuity of employment for on-the-job training; 
Yes: 25; 
No: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 25. 

c. Provision of on-the-job training in all aspects of trades; 
Yes: 25; 
No: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 25. 

d. Consistency with standards for related instructions; 
Yes: 25; 
No: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 25. 

e. Currency of related instruction with acceptable industry practice; 
Yes: 21; 
No: 3; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 25. 

f. Appropriateness of wages to actual hours of related instruction and 
on-the-job training; 
Yes: 24; 
No: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 25. 

g. Establishment of criteria or guidelines for instructors; 
Yes: 14; 
No: 11; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 25. 

h. Completion rates; 
Yes: 23; 
No: 2; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 25. 

i. Cancellation rates; 
Yes: 22; 
No: 2; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 25. 

j. Relative amount of time taken by apprentices to complete programs 
relative to time required for program; 
Yes: 18; 
No: 7; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 25. 

k. Maintenance of required records; 
Yes: 25; 
No: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 25. 

l. Other; 
Yes: 1; 
No: 1; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 3. 

[End of table]

Q40. How often does your state conduct formalized reviews of individual 
apprenticeship programs that address on-the-job training, related 
instruction, and/or program operations?

Less frequently than every three years: 4; 
Once every three years: 1; 
Once every two years: 10; 
Once a year: 7; 
Twice a year: 2; 
More than twice a year: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

[End of table]

Q42. Does your state have a mechanism for conducting formalized Equal 
Employment Opportunity (EEO) reviews of individual apprenticeship 
programs?

Yes: 24; 
No: 3; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 27. 

[End of table]

Q43. How often does your state conduct formalized Equal Employment 
Opportunity (EEO) reviews of individual apprenticeship programs?

Less frequently than every three years: 2; 
Once every three years: 3; 
Once every two years: 8; 
Once a year: 11; 
Twice a year: 0; 
More than twice a year: 0; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 24. 

[End of table]

Q45. Did your state have procedures or policies for recording 
complaints filed in state FY 2004 that were elevated to the level of 
state apprenticeship agencies?

Yes: 22; 
No: 3; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 26. 

[End of table]

Q46a1. In your state, how many total complaints were referred to state 
officials in state FY 2004?

Mean: 46; 
Median: 1; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 699; 
Number of respondents: 20. 

[End of table]

Q46a2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate: 

Check here if actual; 
Count: 15; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

Check here if estimate; 
Count: 5; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

Check here if do not know or cannot estimate; 
Count: 2; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

[End of table]

Q46b1. How many complaints concerned termination in state FY 2004?

Mean: 10; 
Median: 1; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 100; 
Number of respondents: 20. 

[End of table]

Q46b2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate: 

Check here if actual; 
Count: 16; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

Check here if estimate; 
Count: 3; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

Check here if do not know or cannot estimate; 
Count: 3; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

[End of table]

Q46c1. How many complaints concerned discrimination in state FY 2004?

Mean: 0; 
Median: 0; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 2; 
Number of respondents: 20. 

[End of table]

Q46c2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate: 

Check here if actual; 
Count: 17; 
Number of respondents: 21. 

Check here if estimate; 
Count: 1; 
Number of respondents: 21. 

Check here if do not know or cannot estimate; 
Count: 3; 
Number of respondents: 21. 

[End of table]

Q46d1. How many complaints concerned wages in state FY 2004?

Mean: 2; 
Median: 0; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 25; 
Number of respondents: 20. 

[End of table]

Q46d2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate: 

Check here if actual; 
Count: 15; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

Check here if estimate; 
Count: 4; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

Check here if do not know or cannot estimate; 
Count: 3; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

[End of table]

Q46e1. How many complaints concerned related instruction in state FY 
2004?

Mean: 1; 
Median: 0; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 5; 
Number of respondents: 21. 

[End of table]

Q46e2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate: 

Check here if actual; 
Count: 16; 
Number of respondents: 21. 

Check here if estimate; 
Count: 4; 
Number of respondents: 21. 

Check here if do not know or cannot estimate; 
Count: 1; 
Number of respondents: 21. 

[End of table]

Q46f1. How many complaints concerned on-the-job training in state FY 
2004?

Mean: 1; 
Median: 0; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 9; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

[End of table]

Q46f2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate: 

Check here if actual; 
Count: 17; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

Check here if estimate; 
Count: 4; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

Check here if do not know or cannot estimate; 
Count: 1; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

[End of table]

Q46g1. How many complaints concerned other issues in state FY 2004?

Mean: 37; 
Median: 0; 
Minimum: 0; 
Maximum: 664; 
Number of respondents: 19. 

[End of table]

Q46g2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate: 

Check here if actual; 
Count: 16; 
Number of respondents: 20. 

Check here if estimate; 
Count: 2; 
Number of respondents: 20. 

Check here if do not know or cannot estimate; 
Count: 2; 
Number of respondents: 20. 

[End of table]

Q48. Which of the following were sources of data used to answer the 
prior questions about complaints regarding apprenticeship programs in 
the construction trade in state FY 2004?

a. Electronic statewide system; 
Yes: 5; 
No: 6; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 12. 

b. Centralized listing, log, or other paper compilation; 
Yes: 8; 
No: 5; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 14. 

c. Manual search of files; 
Yes: 11; 
No: 4; 
Don't know: 1; 
Number of respondents: 16. 

d. Other; 
Yes: 3; 
No: 1; 
Don't know: 0; 
Number of respondents: 4. 

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

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

AUG 12 2005: 

Mr. Sigurd R. Nilsen: 
Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G. Street, N.W.: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Nilsen: 

The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is in receipt of the 
draft Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled, "Labor 
Can Better Use Data to Target Oversight" (GAO-05-886). 

ETA's goal of providing businesses and workers with skills for the 21 
st century will be enhanced by strategically using data to improve 
apprenticeship programs. We support the report's recommendations and 
are providing an overview of efforts that we will undertake or have 
already been instituted to address these recommendations. 

1) GAO Recommendation: 

Better utilize information in DOL's database, such as indicators of 
program performance, for management oversight, particularly for 
apprenticeship programs in occupations with expected future labor 
shortages. 

ETA Response: 

The Department concurs with this recommendation. ETA will use its 
existing data resources as well as data from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) to identify occupations with skill shortages to help 
us better target our program performance and oversight activities. We 
will seek input from DOL's Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship 
regarding industry labor shortages. ETA will expand its use of the 
Registered Apprenticeship Information System (RAIS) indicators along 
with implementation of WebCEO, a data mining tool. 

2) GAO Recommendation: 

Develop a cost-effective strategy for collecting data from council- 
monitoring states. 

ETA Response: 

The Department agrees with this recommendation. It is our desire to 
have the most complete national apprenticeship data possible. Efforts 
underway have resulted in two additional State Apprenticeship Agency 
(SAA) states agreeing to participate in RAIS. Kentucky started using 
RAIS in June of this year and North Carolina is in the process of 
converting to RAIS. We are hopeful that these early successes will 
culminate in other states joining the system in the near future. 
Targeted resources are being utilized to make this a priority for the 
Department. 

ETA instituted an Apprentice Electronic Registration (AER) process for 
RAIS in October 2004. This new feature is offered to SAA states as a 
cost-effective measure to improve data integrity and efficiency of 
apprenticeship data collection because the sponsor will enter the data. 
ETA has been in negotiations with five SAA states since this process 
went on-line. 

3) GAO Recommendation: 

Conduct reviews of apprenticeship activities in states that regulate 
their own programs on a regular basis to ensure that state activities 
are in accord with Labor's requirements for recognition of 
apprenticeship programs. 

ETA Response: 

The Department agrees with this recommendation. During Fiscal Year 
2005, ETA staff has conducted 10 SAA state reviews and 13 project 
reviews, including the District of Columbia, will be completed by 
September 30, 2005. The Department's goal for Fiscal Year 2006 is to 
complete the remainder of the reviews in SAA states. 

ETA's strategic plan for future reviews is to complete one-third of the 
SAA states each year. This three-year cycle will provide the necessary 
oversight to ensure that SAA states continue to meet the Department's 
requirements to maintain recognition for federal purposes. 

4) GAO Recommendation: 

Offer substantive feedback to states after reviews. 

ETA Response: 

The Department agrees with this recommendation. Final reports of the 
SAA reviews will provide additional feedback and technical assistance. 
In addition, the Department will institute an improved follow-up 
process to ensure recommendations are implemented. 

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. 

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Emily Stover DeRocco:  

[End of section]

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Sigurd R. Nilsen (202) 512-7215: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Patrick DiBattista, Assistant Director, Scott Heacock, Linda W. Stokes, 
and Kathleen D. White managed all aspects of the assignment. The 
following individuals made significant contributions to this report: 
Susan Bernstein, Jessica Botsford, Richard Burkard, Cathy Hurley, and 
Jean McSween. 

[End of section]

Related GAO Products: 

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

Public Community Colleges and Technical Schools: Most Schools Use Both 
Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development. GAO-05-4. 
Washington, D.C.: October 2004. 

Registered Apprenticeships: Labor Could Do More to Expand to Other 
Occupations. GAO-01-940. Washington, D.C.: September 2001. 

Youth Training. PEMD-94-32R. Washington, D.C.: September 1994. 

Apprenticeship Training: Administration, Use, and Equal Opportunity. 
HRD-92-43. Washington, D.C.: March 1992. 

FOOTNOTES

[1] Labor's database also includes data from some federally registered 
programs in council-monitored states. 

[2] Most apprenticeship programs in construction require 4 years to 
complete. In our analysis, we allowed for 6 years, to account for slow 
work periods and other delays. 

[3] Enrollment increased through fiscal year 2000, reaching a total of 
59,625. Since then, there have been fewer apprentices enrolling in 2001 
through 2004, with 36,325 apprentices enrolling in fiscal year 2004. 

[4] Apprentices entering programs during 1994 to 1998 would be expected 
to completed these programs by 2000 to 2004 unless they dropped out. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability 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 (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 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" 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. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

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

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: