WORKFORCE 

TRAINING

DOL Can Better 

Share Information on 

Services for OnDemand, or Gig, 

Workers 

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS 

Oversight, Committee on Finance, U.S. 

Senate

September 2017

GAO-17-561

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-561, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Taxation 

and IRS Oversight, Committee on Finance, 

U.S. Senate

September 2017

WORKFORCE TRAINING

DOL Can Better Share Information on Services for

On-Demand, or Gig, Workers

What GAO Found

Studies GAO reviewed suggest that workers who engage in on-demand, or “gig”

work, differ in their characteristics and types of work performed, but each of 

these defined these workers differently. There is no universally accepted or 

official definition of gig workers; but, for its report, GAO has identified their 

characteristics as follows: self-employed individuals providing labor services and 

completing single projects or tasks on demand for pay. Gig work can be obtained 

or performed either offline or online. According to the three quantitative studies

GAO reviewed, up to about 40 percent of workers earning money through online 

gig work (i.e., applications or websites that connect workers with customers)

were 34 years old or younger. They worked in a variety of occupations ranging 

from providing legal services to moving furniture. According to stakeholders GAO

interviewed, benefits of gig work included flexibility in scheduling and autonomy,

while downsides included a lack of financial security and benefits, such as health

and unemployment insurance.

According to stakeholders, gig workers need soft skills and business skills, many 

of which can be provided by the Department of Labor’s (DOL) existing programs. 

Soft skills include customer service, time management, and self-motivation, and

business skills include marketing and financial literacy and management. In 

addition, gig workers need an understanding of legal matters (e.g., contracts)

associated with gig work. The nation’s public workforce system, including 

workforce boards, which DOL oversees, and other partners can provide some of 

these self-employment skills based on local area needs. Officials at the local

workforce boards GAO interviewed said they served gig workers either directly,

for example, through recruitment events and by providing career services, or 

indirectly, such as through general self-employment services. For instance, the 

Chicago board recruited drivers for a ridesharing company and the San 

Francisco board helped gig workers in the media and visual arts develop their 

portfolios and build their networks. 

Officials from selected state and local workforce boards cited two broad

challenges in providing supports for gig workers: a lack of information on 

promising practices related to gig workers and difficulties in reporting their 

employment-related outcomes. Officials from all 19 state and local boards GAO 

interviewed expressed interest in other boards’ efforts to serve gig workers. DOL 

shares promising practices through its searchable online portal, but has not fully 

linked “gig” and related terms to relevant information on self-employment. 

Helping boards easily find and share promising practices relevant to gig workers 

would allow boards that want to help gig workers to do so more fully and 

efficiently. State and local board officials also explained that it is challenging to 

verify employment and earnings outcomes for the self-employed as they are 

required to do under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). 

Because these outcomes for gig workers may be difficult to verify, a board’s 

performance under WIOA may be negatively affected and result in penalties.

Consequently, DOL officials said workforce boards had asked for guidance on 

collecting outcome information. In June 2017, DOL issued clarifying guidance to 

boards on how to collect information that can be used to report outcomes 

required under WIOA.

View GAO-17-561. For more information 

contact Cindy S. Barnes at (202) 512-7215 or

brownbarnesc@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

In 2015, GAO reported that millions of 

workers do not have standard work 

arrangements. Some barriers to selfemployed gig work have been reduced 

by online platforms, and while the 

public workforce system is accessible 

to all job seekers, it is unclear how the 

system is helping gig workers obtain 

the necessary skills and training to be 

successful. GAO was asked to review 

the skill and training supports needed 

by gig workers. 

GAO examined (1) what is known 

about the characteristics of gig workers 

and the work they perform, including its 

benefits and downsides, (2) the nonoccupational skills and training that 

stakeholders indicate are needed by 

gig workers and how they are 

provided, and (3) the challenges that

selected federal agencies and 

workforce development boards cite in 

providing supports for gig workers. 

GAO conducted a literature review and 

interviewed officials at federal agencies

and a nongeneralizable sample of 8 

state and 11 local workforce boards—

locations selected based on the 

likelihood of a large number of gig 

workers, among other factors—and gig 

company officials, gig workers, 

researchers, and other stakeholders.

GAO also reviewed relevant federal 

laws, regulations, and guidance.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOL take steps 

to help workforce boards find and 

share information on promising

practices related to serving gig 

workers. DOL agreed with GAO’s 

recommendation.
Page i GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Letter 1

Background 5

Studies of Gig Workers Suggest They Differ on Multiple 

Characteristics, and Stakeholders Describe Key Benefits and 

Downsides to Gig Work 10

Federal Programs and Other Sources Offer Training in SelfEmployment Skills That Stakeholders State Gig Workers Need 21

Federal Agencies Are Collecting Data on the Gig Workforce, but 

Information on Promising Practices Is Not Readily Available 31

Conclusions 38

Recommendation for Executive Action 39

Agency Comments 40

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 41

Appendix II Archetypes of Online Gig Workers as Described by 

the Institute for the Future, 2016 50

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Labor 51

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 53

Related GAO Products 54

Tables

Table 1: Key Department of Labor Efforts to Support 

Entrepreneurship and Self-Employment 8

Table 2: Methodology and Findings of Quantitative Studies 

Examining Online Gig Work 11

Table 3: Name and Location of Local Workforce Boards 

Interviewed 46

Table 4: Archetypes of Online Gig Workers as Described by the 

Institute for the Future, 2016 50

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Figure

Figure 1: Selected Workforce Boards’ Services for Those 

Performing or Seeking Gig Work 25

Abbreviations

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

Census U.S. Census Bureau

DOL Department of Labor

Education Department of Education

Federal Reserve Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

IFTF Institute for the Future

JPMorgan JPMorgan Chase Institute

Pew Pew Research Center

SBA Small Business Administration

SBDC Small Business Development Center

WBC Women’s Business Center

WIA Workforce Investment Act of 1998

WIF Workforce Innovation Fund

WIOA Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

September 26, 2017

The Honorable Mark R. Warner

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight

Committee on Finance

United States Senate

Dear Senator Warner:

In 2015, we reported that millions of workers do not have standard work 

arrangements—permanent jobs with traditional employer-employee 

relationships.1 Some of these nontraditional workers are “gig” workers. 

There is no official definition of gig work.2 For the purposes of this report, 

we identify the characteristics of gig workers as follows:

• Self-employed and performing single projects or tasks on demand;

• Providing labor services rather than capital goods or assets;3

• Working for pay (not providing services in-kind);

• Obtaining their work or performing services either offline or online—

through applications or websites, also known as digital or online 

platforms, which connect workers with jobs;4 and

• Performing gig work either part-time or full-time.

 1

GAO, Contingent Workforce, Size, Characteristics, Earnings, and Benefits, GAO-15-168R 

(Washington, D.C.: April 20, 2015). 

2

This type of work can also be referred to as on-demand work, work in the sharing or 1099 

economy, or micro-preneurship, among other terms. Various definitions of these terms 

may overlap with our characteristics of gig work, but they may not be synonymous. 

3

Workers may provide capital assets or goods through, for example, renting a room in their 

home or selling their used or personally created items. Individuals who provide labor 

services differ in some ways from those who provide capital goods or assets, according to 

some of the researchers we interviewed. 

4

Gig work may occur in various online and offline combinations, according to officials we 

interviewed. For example, it can be obtained and performed offline, such as asking your 

neighbor’s landscaper to do work in your yard. Gig work can also be obtained online and 

then performed in-person, or offline, such as when an individual provides services through 

a ridesharing application. In addition, gig work can be both obtained and performed online, 

such as when an individual obtains work through a professional services online platform 

and then provides the final product to the customer electronically. 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Gig workers are not new to the workforce. In the past, gig workers may 

have been known as freelancers or independent contractors. More 

recently, however, companies offering work through online platforms have 

made gig work more accessible, lowering the entry and operating costs 

for workers who want or need to supplement or replace more traditional 

work. For example, in the past a freelancer might have needed to build a 

client base through advertising or referrals, but now online platforms can 

facilitate this process with workers beginning a project or task very 

quickly. While gig work may bring new opportunities, it may also bring 

challenges. Because gig workers are self-employed, they might not 

receive employer-provided benefits, such as retirement or health 

insurance, or be covered by other safeguards, such as job-protected 

leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.5

With this new ease of entry into gig work, it is unclear whether workers 

have the appropriate skills and training to be successful. The federal 

government funds a number of employment and training programs for job 

seekers. In particular, the Departments of Labor (DOL) and Education 

(Education) oversee the public workforce system, with state and local 

workforce boards. The system’s focus has been on providing services 

that help job seekers move into work that is defined by a traditional 

relationship between an employer and an employee, rather than the more

temporary relationship between consumers and providers that is present 

in gig work. It is unclear how the workforce development system along 

with other federal programs may respond to any issues associated with 

gig work.

You asked us to provide information on the non-occupational skills and 

training that could help workers be successful in gig work.6 In this review, 

we examined:

 5

While retirement, health insurance, and other benefits for gig workers are important policy 

issues, we did not consider them within the scope of this report other than the extent to 

which stakeholders identified them as areas where workers need skills or as benefits or 

downsides of gig work. Concerns have also been raised about how workers are 

classified—either as employees or independent contractors. See GAO, Employee 

Misclassification: Improved Coordination, Outreach, and Targeting Could Better Ensure 

Detection and Prevention, GAO-09-717 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 10, 2009). Also see 

Harris, Seth D. and Krueger, Alan B. A Proposal for Modernizing Labor Law for TwentyFirst-Century Work: The “Independent Worker.” The Hamilton Project. Discussion Paper 

2015-10, December 2015.

6

By “non-occupational” we mean non-technical skills rather than the technical skills 

needed to work in a specific industry or occupation.
Page 3 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

1. What is known about the characteristics of gig workers and the work 

they perform, including its benefits and downsides?

2. What non-occupational skills and training do stakeholders indicate are 

needed by gig workers, and how are they provided?

3. What challenges, if any, do selected federal agencies and workforce 

development boards cite in providing supports for gig workers?

To address our objectives we reviewed relevant federal laws and 

regulations, including the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(WIOA),7 which brought changes to many of the programs in the 

workforce development system, and DOL and Education regulations and 

guidance on its implementation. We also searched DOL’s technical 

assistance website portal, WorkforceGPS,8 using terms related to gig 

work and reviewed federal internal control standards9 to assess how 

information related to gig workers was being communicated to workforce 

boards.

We reviewed the literature and interviewed federal agency officials, 

researchers, and other stakeholders to identify key government, industry, 

and academic studies examining the gig workforce. Because our focus 

was on skills and training, we selected specific studies that analyzed gig 

workers who were providing labor services and were self-employed. 

Therefore, we did not review studies that included information about 

workers providing goods or capital assets or where the information on 

workers providing labor services could not be broken out separately from 

those providing goods or capital assets.10 To assess their methodological 

 7

Pub. L. No. 113-128, 128 Stat. 1425 (2014). WIOA repealed the Workforce Investment 

Act of 1998 (WIA), Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936. 

8

Resources available on this website include research reports and evaluations as well as 

other resources, such as advisories, webinars, guides, and podcasts. Information is 

organized by program, target population, geographic location, and industry sector.

9

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014).

10Workers may provide capital assets or goods through, for example, renting a room in 

their home or selling their used or personally created items. Individuals who provide labor 

services differ in some ways from those who provide capital goods or assets, according to 

some of the researchers we interviewed. Specifically, one researcher said his research 

group considered the distinction between capital and labor when describing the platform 

companies they included in their study. For example, individuals driving for ridesharing 

companies were defined as providing labor services because those individuals were being 

paid for driving customers, not only for owning a car. 
Page 4 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

quality, we reviewed the evaluation methodology for each study. Through 

this process, we identified and reviewed four key studies that met our 

topical and methodological criteria.

We interviewed officials at DOL, Education, the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce), and the Small Business Administration (SBA) to examine 

programs that might serve gig workers.11 We also interviewed numerous 

stakeholders to determine what skills and training are needed by gig 

workers and the benefits and downsides of such work. Among these 

stakeholders were:

• Nine researchers, identified through our literature review and 

recommendations from experts and internal stakeholders;

• Twenty-one associations and organizations that may represent, 

advocate for, or share information with gig workers, including 

associations and bloggers, to obtain a range of perspectives on gig 

workers; and

• Officials at gig companies, including six online platform gig 

companies, reflecting a range of services provided by gig workers, 

such as transportation, food and goods delivery, and professional 

services.

In addition, we interviewed senior officials at 11 local workforce boards to 

identify efforts to serve gig workers.12 Local boards were selected based 

on a range of criteria, including information collected during initial 

interviews with DOL and local board officials and industry groups, a 

private sector report with information on cities with the largest 

percentages of workers with income from online platforms,13 and other 

relevant documents, including our past work on local workforce boards.14

 11We did not conduct a comprehensive review of all federal programs that might serve gig 

workers by providing training, employment, or entrepreneurship services, but focused on 

those that appeared most likely to provide relevant services.

12In addition, we interviewed the San Diego workforce board about a November 2016 

report it prepared on gig workers. That interview was limited to the report’s methodology 

and recommendations, and unlike the other workforce board interviews, did not address 

issues related to the skills and training needs of gig workers, or the benefits and 

downsides of gig work.

13See JPMorgan Chase Institute, The Online Platform Economy: Who Earns the Most? 

May 5, 2016.

14GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations between Workforce Boards 

and Employers Helped Meet Local Needs, GAO-12-97 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 19, 2012).
Page 5 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Selected boards were located in San Francisco and Sunnyvale, 

California; Denver, Colorado; Gainesville and Miami, Florida; Atlanta, 

Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; New York City, New York; Dallas, Texas; 

Vienna, Virginia; and Seattle, Washington.15 We also interviewed state 

workforce boards in those same states.16 The results of these interviews 

cannot be generalized to the larger population of all state or local 

workforce boards.

We visited 5 of the 11 boards—San Francisco and Sunnyvale, California;

Gainesville, Florida; Chicago, Illinois; and Vienna, Virginia—where we 

also interviewed American Job Center directors17 and held discussion 

groups with a total of 15 gig workers, who were identified by the 

workforce boards, based on criteria we provided. See appendix I for 

more information on our scope and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from February 2016 to September 

2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Currently there is no universally accepted or official definition of the gig 

economy or gig workers. The characteristics of gig workers that we focus 

on in this report (self-employed individuals who perform single projects or 

tasks on demand for pay) share some characteristics with selfemployment as it is understood by other federal agencies, but our 

15For the purposes of this report, we are identifying each workforce board by city or region. 

For the names of each workforce board, see appendix I.

16The New York State workforce board was not available for an interview. 

17Local development boards select entities to run American Job Centers, formerly called 

one-stop centers, which provide employment and training services to job seekers. 

Background
Page 6 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

characterization does not directly align with those agencies’ views.18

Although other definitions have been used to measure the number of gig 

workers, our focus was on the non-occupational skills and training 

needed by workers who participate in gig work. We characterized gig 

workers as being self-employed and who participate in gig work part-time 

or full-time. However, not all self-employed individuals are gig workers.19

For example, we did not consider self-employed individuals who own their 

own storefront business, such as a restaurant owner, as gig workers 

because they do not generally work on a project basis. However, our 

characterization would include a caterer who works on a project basis 

with multiple clients. At the same time, however, we excluded projectbased workers who are not self-employed, such as those who are 

employees of a staffing agency.

As the centerpiece of the federal government’s workforce system, the 

purposes of WIOA include the following: (1) provide individuals, 

particularly those with barriers to employment, increased access to and 

opportunities for employment, education, training, and support services to 

succeed in the labor market; (2) provide America’s workers with the skills 

and credentials necessary to secure and advance in employment with 

family-sustaining wages; and (3) provide activities through the state and 

local workforce development systems to increase the employment, 

retention, earnings, and economic self-sufficiency of participants; among 

other purposes. Programs administered by DOL and Education provide 

services such as job search assistance, career counseling, occupational 

skills training, classroom training, and on-the-job training. In addition, 

WIOA provides for a workforce system that is accessible to all job 

18For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics generally considers self-employed workers 

as those who are unincorporated. It counts incorporated self-employed workers as wage 

and salary workers because BLS considers them to be employees of their own 

businesses. The Internal Revenue Service generally considers self-employed workers to 

be those who (1) carry on a trade or business as a sole proprietor or an independent 

contractor; (2) are a member of a partnership that carries on a business or trade; or (3) 

are otherwise in business for themselves. 

19Some of the self-employed may own a stable incorporated business, pay themselves a 

salary, and enjoy relatively predictable hours and earnings due to a well-established 

clientele. Others, however, may operate as unincorporated sole proprietors who earn 

money by performing a series of one-time jobs for which they are paid agreed sums, but 

who cannot count on continuing employment and whose hours and earnings may be 

volatile. See Abraham, Katharine G., Haltiwanger, John C., Spletzer, James R., and 

Sandusky, Kristin, Measuring the Gig Economy: Current Knowledge and Open Issues, 

March 2, 2017.

The Public Workforce 

Development System
Page 7 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

seekers to make it easier for them to access the services they need to 

obtain skills and employment. Basic career services include eligibility 

determinations, initial skill assessments, and program referrals. WIOA 

also provides for state workforce development boards (state boards) to 

help oversee a system of over 550 local workforce development boards 

(local boards) that, in turn, deliver services through a network of over 

2,400 American Job Centers. Under WIOA, state and local boards have 

the flexibility to respond to the needs of their local labor markets, which 

they do, in part, through the analysis of local labor market information.

Federal funding under WIOA for core programs is allocated to states 

using statutory formulas that, in part, generally reflect state and local 

unemployment data.20 According to DOL, in program year 2017, total 

appropriated funding for activities related to Adult and Dislocated Worker 

programs and Wagner-Peyser Employment Services was more than $2.7 

billion. Local boards may also leverage other funding sources, such as 

DOL discretionary grants and state and local government funding, among 

other sources.

WIOA included new performance measures for states and local areas 

generally related to participants who exit WIOA programs. These include 

the percentage of participants employed in unsubsidized employment in 

the second and fourth quarters after program exit, and median earnings in 

unsubsidized employment in the second quarter after exit, among other 

measures. Generally, performance outcome targets are negotiated 

between DOL’s regional offices and state workforce boards and take into 

consideration the characteristics of the job seekers being served as well 

as the local labor market conditions. Both states and local areas are 

subject to certain consequences for failing to achieve their negotiated 

targets.21 To support performance outcomes, states must use, consistent 

with state law, quarterly wage records to verify participants’ employment 

20WIOA designated six programs as core programs. Four of these programs are 

administered by DOL: Title I Adult, Title I Dislocated Worker, Title I Youth, and WagnerPeyser Employment Service. Two of these programs are administered by Education: Adult 

Education and Family Literacy Act, and State Vocational Rehabilitation Services. 

21One of these possible consequences in the event that the local area fails to meet its 

goals in each of 3 consecutive years is the appointment and certification of a new local 

board. If a state fails to meet its performance measures for 2 consecutive years, the 

funding reserved by the Governor in the following program year is reduced by five percent 

until DOL or Education, as appropriate, determines that the state’s performance meets its 

goals. 
Page 8 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

and earnings.22 States typically satisfy this requirement by using their 

Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage record data. Earnings from selfemployment, however, are generally not included in state UI wage 

records because self-employed workers are not considered to be in 

employment that is covered by the unemployment insurance system.23 In 

these cases, boards are allowed to use supplemental wage information—

for example, case management notes, administrative records, and 

surveys of participants, among other things—to support employment and 

earnings outcomes.

DOL has long encouraged workforce boards to provide entrepreneurship 

and self-employment training by funding several projects and grants to 

demonstrate the role of the workforce development system in this area 

(see table 1).

Table 1: Key Department of Labor Efforts to Support Entrepreneurship and Self-Employment

Time frame Name of Effort Purpose

1995 - ongoing Self-Employment Assistance 

(SEA) Programs

To permit Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants to receive SEA 

allowances in lieu of UI compensation while pursuing self-employment 

activities full time rather than the regular UI work search requirements. 

2003 - 2005 Growing America Through 

Entrepreneurship (Project 

GATE) 

To pilot entrepreneurship training in three states.

2006 Self-Employment Technical 

Assistance, Resources, and 

Training (START-UP) 

To pilot strategies to support self-employment for workers with 

disabilities in three states. 

Started in 2012 Workforce Innovation Fund 

(WIF) Grants

To spur innovative service delivery strategies in self-employment, 

among other areas.

2013 - ongoing Self-Employment Training 

(SET) Demonstration

To test a model in which self-employed workers have ongoing access 

to advisors and customized support in addition to capital grants totaling 

$1,000. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor documents. │ GAO-17-561

DOL also provides technical assistance to workforce boards through 

online training, other training events, and its WorkforceGPS website. 

WorkforceGPS is an interactive online platform designed to build the 

2229 U.S.C. § 3141(i)(2). 

23Unemployment insurance programs are generally funded by federal and state payroll 

taxes levied on employers. See GAO, Unemployment Insurance: States’ Customer 

Service Challenges and DOL’s Related Assistance, GAO-16-430 (Washington, D.C.: May 

12, 2016).
Page 9 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

capacity of the public workforce system through knowledge sharing. It 

offers resources, peer-to-peer connections, and supplements other 

technical assistance efforts.

SBA also has programs that provide support and training to selfemployed workers, including the following:

• Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) – SBDCs, with more

than 900 service delivery points, provide training and technical

assistance to current or prospective business owners.

• SCORE Association – SCORE is a nationwide, nonprofit organization

of working and retired business executives who donate time to

counsel and provide workshops for small business owners.

• Women’s Business Centers (WBCs) – WBCs are a national network

that provides educational resources to help women start and grow

successful small businesses.

SBA Programs That 

Provide Assistance to the 

Self-Employed, Including 

Gig Workers
Page 10 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Because there is no universally accepted definition of gig work, 

characteristics of individuals engaging in this work and the types of work 

they perform depend on how this population is studied. Each of the three 

quantitative studies we reviewed defined their population of workers, type 

of work performed, and time frames of work performed differently.24

Therefore, each study provides a snapshot of this emerging area, and 

their results are not directly comparable (see table 2).25

 24The way in which these studies define gig work is not always synonymous with how we 

characterized gig workers in this report.

25We also reviewed a fourth study, “The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work 

Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015” by Lawrence F. Katz and Alan B. Krueger 

(2016), but the raw data were not available in time for us to analyze and include in this 

report. This study examined four different types of alternative work arrangements: 

independent contractors or freelancers, on-call workers, temporary help agency workers, 

and workers provided by contract firms.

Studies of Gig 

Workers Suggest 

They Differ on 

Multiple 

Characteristics, and 

Stakeholders 

Describe Key 

Benefits and 

Downsides to Gig 

Work

Studies of Gig Workers 

and the Types of Work 

They Perform Suggest 

They Differ on Multiple 

Characteristics
Page 11 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Table 2: Methodology and Findings of Quantitative Studies Examining Online Gig Work

Study Name and 

Research Entity

Exploring Online and Offline Informal 

Work: Findings from the Enterprising and 

Informal Work Activities (EIWA) Survey

(Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System)a

Gig Work, Online Selling and 

Home Sharing (Pew Research 

Center)b

Paychecks, Paydays, and 

the Online Platform 

Economy: Big Data on 

Income Volatility (JPMorgan 

Chase Institute)c

Methodology Used Survey Survey Analysis of data on bank 

customers who were 

primary account holders.

Time Frame of Work 

Performed

Past 6 months Past year October 2012 through 

September 2015

Population Studied Adults participating in occasional, 

multiple, serial, and informal paid work. 

U.S. adults who earned money 

through technology-enabled gig 

work (i.e., websites or mobile 

applications).b

260,000 JPMorgan Chase 

customers with a checking 

account that had at least five 

outflows in every month 

during the study period and 

who received income at 

least once from 1 of 30 

online platform companies.d

Findings

Age Of adults completing online tasks through 

websites, an estimated:

41 percent were 18-29 years old;

33 percent were 30-44 years old;

17 percent were 45-59 years old; and

9 percent were 60 years old or older.

Of U.S. adults having earned 

money in the last year from 

online gig work, an estimated:

42 percent were 

18-29 years old;

39 percent were 

30-49 years old;

15 percent were 

50-64 years old; and

4 percent were 65 years 

old or older.

The median age 

was 32.

Of those checking account 

holders who participated in 

online labor platforms:

7 percent were 18-24 years 

old;

36 percent were 25-34 years 

old;

25 percent were 35-44 years 

old;

17 percent were 45-54 years 

old;

9 percent were 55-65 years 

old; and

6 percent were 65 years old 

or older.

Gender Of adults completing online tasks through

websites, an estimated:

55 percent were men, and 46 percent 

were women. 

Of U.S. adults having earned 

money in the last year from 

online gig work, an estimated:

45 percent were men, and 55 

percent were women.

Of those checking account 

holders who participated in 

online labor platforms:

67 percent were men, and 

33 percent were women.
Page 12 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Income Of adults completing online tasks through 

websites, an estimated:

19 percent had a family income of less 

than $25,000;

9 percent had a family income of $25,000

- $39,999;

26 percent had a family income of 

$40,000 - $74,999;

21 percent had a family income of 

$75,000 - $99,999; and

24 percent had a family income of greater 

than $100,000.

Of U.S. adults having earned 

money in the last year from 

online gig work, an estimated:

49 percent had an annual family 

income of less than $30,000;

35 percent had an annual family 

income between $30,000 and 

$74,999; and

14 percent had an annual family 

income of $75,000 or more. 

Checking account holders 

who participated in online 

labor platforms had lower 

monthly median income 

($2,514) than sample 

participants who were in the 

labor force ($3,351).

Education Of adults completing online tasks through 

websites, an estimated:

15 percent had less than a high school 

diploma;

21 percent had a high school diploma;

29 percent had some college; and

34 percent had a bachelor’s degree or 

higher.

Of U.S. adults having earned 

money in the last year from 

online gig work, an estimated:

42 percent had a high school 

diploma or less;

37 percent had some college; 

and

21 percent had graduated from 

college or had post-graduate 

education.

The study did not include 

information on education.

Source: GAO analysis of government and industry studies. │ GAO-17-561

Notes: The studies we reviewed that describe characteristics of gig workers rely on respondent use of 

online surveys and/or bank accounts. To the extent characteristics of those surveyed or observed 

differ from gig workers overall, these studies have the potential to report different characteristics than 

what is present in the gig worker population (online and offline) as a whole. Also, the way in which 

these studies define gig work is not always synonymous with how we characterized gig workers in 

this report. Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

a

Robles, Barbara, and Marysol McGee (2016). “Exploring Online and Offline Informal Work: Findings 

from the Enterprising and Informal Work Activities (EIWA) Survey,” Finance and Economics 

Discussion Series 2016-089. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 

https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2016.089. We analyzed and present Federal Reserve Board data 

specific to survey respondents who indicated they completed online tasks through websites. The 

margin of error for the age, gender, income, and occupation variables in this dataset was a maximum 

+/-7.6 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence.

b

Smith, Aaron, Gig Work, Online Selling and Home Sharing. Pew Research Center. Nov. 17, 2016.

See www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/17/gig-work-online-selling-and-home-sharing/. We included study

results for gig workers providing labor services only. The Pew Research Center considered an 

individual a technology-enabled gig worker if they earned money in the last year from websites or 

mobile applications that: connected workers directly with people who wanted to hire them, required 

workers to create a profile in order to find and accept work assignments, and coordinated payments 

once the task or job was completed. The unweighted sample size of gig workers was 298. The 

margin of error for this group was +/-9.2 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence.

c

JPMorgan Chase Institute, Paychecks, Paydays, and the Online Platform Economy: Big Data on 

Income Volatility, Feb. 2016. See www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/institute/report-paycheckspaydays-and-the-online-platform-economy.htm. Because the unit of analysis in this study was bank 

accounts rather than individual workers, results could describe income earned from other household 

members sharing that account (i.e., joint account holders). The study states that its base sample is 

skewed slightly in favor of 25-54 year olds; includes a high proportion of men as there may be a 

tendency for men to be named primary account holders on joint accounts; is biased geographically to 

Chase bank’s footprint, which slightly favors the West; and is skewed in favor of higher-income 

individuals because these individuals are more likely to have a bank account. 
Page 13 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

d

This study defined the online labor platform economy as economic activities involving online 

intermediaries that are marked by four characteristics: (1) they provide an online platform that 

connects workers directly to customers; (2) they allow people to work when they want; (3) they pay on 

a “piece-rate” basis for a single task at a time; and (4) they intermediate or facilitate payment for the 

service.

According to the studies we reviewed, up to about 40 percent of workers 

engaging in online gig or informal work were 34 years old or younger. The 

JPMorgan Chase Institute (JPMorgan Chase) study found that 43 percent 

of account holders participating in online labor platforms were 18-34 

years old.26 The Pew Research Center study found that an estimated 42 

percent of gig workers were 18-29 years old, whereas 19 percent of 

participants were 50 years old or older.27 Similarly, the Federal Reserve 

Board (Federal Reserve) found that an estimated 41 percent of those 

completing tasks through online platforms were under age 30.28

The JPMorgan Chase and Pew Research Center studies found online gig 

workers to have relatively lower incomes. Specifically, the JPMorgan 

Chase study found that their bank account owners who earned income 

through online labor platforms from October 2012 through September 

2015 had lower median monthly incomes ($2,514) than the JPMorgan 

 26JPMorgan Chase Institute, Paychecks, Paydays, and the Online Platform Economy: Big 

Data on Income Volatility, Feb. 2016. See 

www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/institute/report-paychecks-paydays-and-the-onlineplatform-economy.htm. Because the unit of analysis in this study was bank accounts 

rather than individual workers, results could describe income earned from other household 

members sharing that account (i.e., joint account holders). The study states that its base 

sample is skewed slightly in favor of 25-54 year olds; includes a high proportion of men as 

there may be a tendency for men to be named primary account holders on joint accounts; 

is biased geographically to Chase bank’s footprint, which slightly favors the West; and is 

skewed in favor of higher-income individuals because these individuals are more likely to 

have a bank account. 

27Smith, Aaron, Gig Work, Online Selling and Home Sharing. Pew Research Center. Nov. 

17, 2016. See www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/17/gig-work-online-selling-and-homesharing/. The unweighted sample size of gig workers was 298. The margin of error for this 

group was +/-9.2 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence. 

28Robles, Barbara and Marysol McGee (2016). “Exploring Online and Offline Informal 

Work: Findings from the Enterprising and Informal Work Activities (EIWA) Survey,” 

Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2016-089. Washington: Board of Governors of 

the Federal Reserve System, https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2016.089. The Federal 

Reserve surveyed individuals on both online and offline informal work. Our presentation of 

the Federal Reserve’s data, however, only includes specific percentages for individuals 

who completed tasks through online platforms.

Worker Characteristics
Page 14 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Chase study population labor force at large ($3,351).29 The Pew 

Research Center study had similar results with an estimated 49 percent 

of online gig workers making a family income of $30,000 or less annually, 

whereas only 14 percent of those made $75,000 or more. On the other 

hand, the Federal Reserve estimated that almost half (about 45 percent) 

of those completing online tasks through websites had an annual family 

income greater than $75,000.

Some individuals who participate in gig work are also engaged in other 

employment or are students. According to the Pew Research Center 

study, an estimated two-thirds of online gig workers indicated that they 

were employed either full- or part-time in another position, and 23 percent 

were enrolled as either full- or part-time students. The Federal Reserve 

study estimated that approximately half of those performing online tasks 

through websites reported that they were also paid employees, with about 

an additional 10 percent reporting that they were self-employed.

According to the studies we reviewed, gig work is performed in a range of 

occupations, and at various skill levels.30 The Pew Research Center study 

reported that the types of work found through online platforms varied 

between physical tasks, simple online tasks, or relatively complex tasks. 

For example, according to the Pew Research Center, the estimated 8 

percent of Americans who earned money in the last year through online 

job platforms performed at least one of the following tasks:31

• online tasks through digital job platforms, such as data entry or taking 

surveys (an estimated 5 percent);

• ride-hailing services (an estimated 2 percent); and shopping for or 

delivering household items, or by cleaning or doing laundry for a client 

(an estimated 1 percent each); and

• other types of work taken on through online platforms (an estimated 2 

percent). This work ranged from relatively basic tasks, such as 

moving furniture or working as a parking lot attendant, to more highly-

 29The JPMorgan Chase study defined the labor force as all individuals who received any 

labor income during the 36 months of its study. 

30We were not able to describe the types of online platform work conducted by account 

owners in the JPMorgan Chase study because it did not include information about the 30 

platform companies for which it tracked payments. 

31Respondents could provide more than one task in response to this question; therefore, 

respondents may be counted in multiple task categories. 

Types of Work
Page 15 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

specialized work, such as providing legal services, manuscript editing, 

or IT consulting.

According to three researchers we interviewed, recent attention has been 

paid to online gig work, but a larger number of individuals are participating 

in offline gig work. The Federal Reserve examined characteristics of 

survey respondents who engaged in various types of online and offline 

gig work.32 Online gig work included completing tasks that were identified 

or mediated through online platforms. Offline gig work included house 

cleaning, house painting, yard or landscaping work; babysitting and/or 

child care services; and personal services such as picking up dry 

cleaning, providing moving assistance, and dog walking; among other 

services.

Workers’ motivations for engaging in gig work included filling gaps in 

income and accommodation of work schedule preferences, according to 

the two studies for which we obtained survey results.33 The JPMorgan 

Chase study reviewed the bank deposits of individuals in the months that 

they were actively participating in online platform work. This analysis 

found that earnings from online labor platforms tended to offset dips in 

other sources of income; therefore, the researchers suggested that 

individuals used earnings from the online labor platforms to substitute for 

reductions in other sources of earnings and in periods where workers 

were between jobs. Although JPMorgan Chase found that online gig work 

sometimes substitutes for other income sources, it also noted that these 

deposits contributed a sizeable portion of their income—on average, 33 

percent of total monthly income in months they were active on the 

platform—but were secondary to other income sources deposited to their 

accounts. The study noted that although the number of people 

participating in online gig work has increased, workers’ reliance on 

income from this work has remained stable over time both in terms of the 

fraction of months when workers participated and total income earned.

The Pew Research Center study found that providing workers with 

something to do in their spare time and filling in gaps in income were top 

 32The Federal Reserve asked screener questions to identify its population of qualified 

survey respondents. These questions asked respondents if they had been paid for specific 

online and offline activities. 

33The Federal Reserve study also asked survey respondents about their motivations for 

engaging in informal work. However, the raw data were not available in time for us to 

analyze and include in this report. 

Worker Motivations
Page 16 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

motivations for online gig workers. About 42 percent of gig workers said 

they use online platforms for fun or something to do in their spare time, 

whereas about 37 percent said this work helps fill in gaps or fluctuations 

in income.

The Pew Research Center study also estimated that income earned from 

online platforms was essential or important to approximately half of 

workers, and these workers tended to have lower levels of household 

income and education.34 Of the estimated 8 percent of survey 

respondents who said that they earned money in the last year from online 

platforms, approximately 56 percent reported the income was essential or 

important to their overall financial situation. Of those, an estimated 45 

percent said that they use online platforms because they need to be able 

to control their schedule due to school, child care, or other obligations. 

About a quarter also said they use online platforms because it is fun or for 

something to do (about 28 percent), because there is a lack of other jobs 

where they live (about 25 percent), or to gain work experience they can 

take to other jobs (about 24 percent).

Another study, conducted by the Institute for the Future (IFTF), provides a 

different perspective on the characteristics of online gig workers using a 

qualitative analysis of interview responses to develop profiles of gig 

workers and their motivation.35 From those interviews, IFTF developed 

seven archetypes to describe different types of gig workers, such as 

workers wanting to build their own business and maximizing online 

platforms to do so; those navigating a life transition; or those optimizing 

income on a day-to-day basis (see app. II).

 34The Pew Research Center survey asked respondents which of the following statements 

best described the income earned from online gig work or ride-hailing: (1) it is essential for 

meeting my basic needs; (2) it is an important component of my budget, but not essential; 

(3) it is nice to have, but I could live comfortably without it; or (4) No answer. 

35Lueck Avery, Miriam; Baskin, Cindy; Falcon, Rod; Gentry, Eri; Goldman, Alex; 

Hamamoto, Ben; Skvirsky, Sara; and Vian, Kathi. Voices of Workable Futures: People 

Transforming Work in the Platform Economy. Institute for the Future. Palo Alto, Calif, 

2016. See www.iftf.org/voices/. In 2015 the IFTF interviewed a total of 31 individuals, sets 

of business partners, and families who were using the platform economy or had recently 

used it. Because this qualitative analysis was based on a relatively small number of 

interviews, the results cannot be generalized to the larger group of gig workers. Even 

though some of the seven archetypes included workers using capital platforms, we 

considered all seven archetypes because they included at least one example of a worker 

providing labor services through an online platform. 
Page 17 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

The different stakeholder groups we interviewed described many of the 

same benefits to participating in gig work. All stakeholder groups 

mentioned the following:36

• flexibility (e.g., to work around other responsibilities, such as 

childcare);

• autonomy (e.g., ability to set own hours and be “own boss”);

• income (e.g., supplemental or to fill in between jobs); and

• the ability to help build a business, a resume, or experience.

Most stakeholder groups also mentioned the following:

• low barrier to entry; and

• the ability to pursue a passion.

All of the gig companies we interviewed said flexibility or autonomy, or 

both, were benefits. Specifically, one company official said gig workers 

have the opportunity to be self-starters, determining when and where they 

want to work. Another company official said that the income provides 

workers the freedom to leave another job or make ends meet if they are 

laid off. Workers in three of our discussion groups also mentioned the 

benefits of flexibility and autonomy. Specific benefits mentioned by 

workers included being able to work on their own schedule, having control 

on pricing their services, and working from where they want. 

 36We categorized the stakeholders we interviewed into six groups: local workforce boards, 

local workforce board service providers or partners, gig companies, gig workers, worker 

associations and advocates, and researchers. A stakeholder group was considered to 

have mentioned a specific benefit if it was mentioned by at least one interviewee in the 

group.

Different Stakeholder 

Groups Described Many of 

the Same Key Benefits 

and Downsides to Gig 

Work

Key Benefits
Page 18 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

According to local workforce board officials we interviewed, the flexibility 

and autonomy of gig work may be especially beneficial for some types of 

workers. For example, officials from 8 of the 11 workforce boards said 

workers who might benefit most from gig work include those who need 

flexible schedules, such as students who are going to school or are 

enrolled in training, and those with care-taking responsibilities.

Gig work can also help workers develop job-seeking skills, provide work 

experience, or fill in gaps in resumes, according to officials from 10 of the 

11 local workforce boards we interviewed. Specifically, a local board 

official said traditional companies do not like to see employment gaps; 

therefore, the board encourages its clients to pursue consulting or 

volunteer work so that there are no gaps on their resumes. The official 

added that gig work through short-term contracts is often viewed by 

traditional employers as valid employment and could provide the 

necessary work experience to help individuals secure more permanent, 

full-time work if desired. Moreover, another board official said that certain 

types of gig work could help workers enhance their capabilities—for 

example by helping them better understand how a business runs and 

become more entrepreneurial with better self-employment skills.

According to 9 of 11 local workforce board officials we interviewed, gig 

work could also be beneficial for people for whom traditional work may 

present challenges, such as individuals with disabilities, ex-offenders, 

low-income workers, or those who are unemployed or underemployed.37

For example, officials from one local board said gig work benefits harderto-serve populations because it allows them to earn income while going to 

school and by working from home.

The different stakeholder groups we interviewed also described many of 

the same downsides to participating in gig work. All stakeholder groups 

mentioned the following:38

• lack of financial security;

 37Income from gig work could affect eligibility for government assistance programs that are 

restricted to families or individuals who meet specified financial requirements (i.e., meanstested programs). These federal programs include Medicaid, Supplemental Security 

Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. 

38A stakeholder group was considered to have mentioned a specific downside if it was 

mentioned by at least one interviewee in the group.

Flexibility and Autonomy Are Benefits of 

Gig Work

“I have a young family and need the extra 

cash. I find using an online platform more 

convenient than word of mouth. [I] would like 

to use [the] opportunity to become [an] 

entrepreneur. I want to be my own boss 24 

hours a day.”

Source: GAO interview with workers in Gainesville, FL. │ 

GAO-17-561

Key Downsides
Page 19 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

• lack of benefits; and

• increased risk that arises from increased liability and high rate of 

failure in self-employment, among other reasons.

Many stakeholders also mentioned the following:

• lack of stability; and

• challenges to running a business that include not understanding the 

responsibilities of being self-employed or the length of time it can take 

for a new business to become profitable, or not finding the necessary 

capital.

Officials from 10 of the 11 local workforce boards we interviewed said that 

a lack of financial security was a downside to gig work. Specifically, 

workers may have difficulty earning enough to achieve self-sufficiency, 

have unpredictable or low income, or experience a high rate of failure with 

self-employment. Further, officials from one board that works with shortterm contractors in the information technology field said it can be 

challenging for U.S. workers to make sufficient pay from work obtained 

through professional online platforms because workers face global 

competition from those in other countries who are willing to do the same 

work for less pay. Similarly, lack of financial security was a concern 

among workers in three of our four discussion groups who said low or 

unpredictable income was a downside, and this factor was also 

mentioned by two of the gig companies we interviewed.

Other factors related to financial security that stakeholder groups 

mentioned are the risk of not being paid for work performed or poor 

customer ratings diminishing the availability of future work. Gig workers in 

three of our four discussion groups said the risk of not being paid for work 

performed is a downside. Moreover, workers in three of our discussion 

groups said customer complaints or rating systems were a downside 

because a poor customer rating could result in canceled payments for 

work performed or could significantly affect future work opportunities. The 

Pew Research Center study39 estimated that 29 percent of online gig 

 39Smith, Aaron, Gig Work, Online Selling and Home Sharing. Pew Research Center. Nov. 

17, 2016.
Page 20 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

workers said they have performed work using an online platform for which 

they did not receive payment.40

All stakeholder groups we interviewed said the lack of employer-provided 

benefits—such as health insurance, unemployment insurance, vacation 

pay, and sick pay, among other benefits—was a downside to gig work. 

Specifically, one official who provides training to entrepreneurs said it is 

difficult for gig workers to project how much their health care will cost and 

consequently how much they need to work to cover those costs. 

Four of the six stakeholder groups we interviewed said a lack of 

knowledge about running a business was a challenge to working in the 

gig economy. This knowledge is important because according to one 

stakeholder we interviewed, drivers for ridesharing companies are 

building their own business, but some do not realize the consequences of 

engaging in this type of work. Further, officials from one local workforce 

board said because barriers to engaging in gig work are low, workers may 

enter into this type of work before knowing how to manage their selfemployment or understanding its ramifications. Officials at two other local

workforce boards also said gig workers may not understand that they may 

face a longer period of time than expected to become successful 

entrepreneurs or face challenges obtaining capital needed for their 

business.

As previously mentioned, gig work can benefit some harder-to-serve 

populations; however, there may be additional downsides for gig workers 

who lack technical skills needed to successfully execute the work or those 

who are low income or urgently in need of a job, according to many 

stakeholders. Specifically, officials from one local workforce board said 

there is a difference between gig work for low-skilled workers and higherskilled workers. They said gig work is not as viable in the long run for 

workers who do not have the necessary technical skills. As a result, they 

could remain caught in lower-skilled gig work even though their ultimate 

goal might be to develop a career. An official from a gig company that 

provides professional services said workers are less likely to be 

successful in gig work without a specialized skill that is in demand. In 

 40On November 16, 2016, the New York City Mayor’s office announced signing into law 

enhanced protections for freelance workers. According to a New York City Council 

document, the law specifically addresses the right to a written contract when the contract 

has a value of $800 or more, the right to be paid timely and in full, and the right to be free 

of retaliation.

Risk of Not Being Paid for Gig Work

“You may not get paid and the available 

recourse depends on [the] amount of money 

owed. If it is a small amount, $500 or even 

$5,000, it might not be worth going to court so 

you may eat [the] cost and not sue. It will be a 

lesson learned not to work for that client 

again.” – Gig worker who provided consulting 

services

“Clients get savvy and cancel on the work. 

[You] clock in and out on your mobile device 

but if a customer complains the company will 

cancel payment from that job. Do a 4-hour job 

and then not get paid because [the] customer 

complained that some task did not get done.” 

— Gig worker who arranged to perform 

housekeeping services through an online gig 

company

Source: GAO interviews with gig workers in Gainesville, FL, 

and San Francisco, CA. │ GAO-17-561

Lack of Benefits for Gig Workers

“Lack of health insurance possibly keeps 

workers who want to be in the on-demand 

economy in a job they do not like. This lack of 

available health insurance hinders the 

entrepreneurial spirit and has an effect on 

workers’ risk tolerance.”

Source: GAO interview with organization that provides 

services to entrepreneurs. │ GAO-17-561.
Page 21 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

addition, an official from an organization that offers information for 

workers providing ridesharing services said that type of gig work helps 

workers get by, but does not provide them with future pay raises or a 

career.

Stakeholders we interviewed said that gig workers need various selfemployment skills. In particular, stakeholders identified soft skills, which 

include

• customer service orientation,

• time management,

• self-motivation/self-direction,

• professionalism,

• ability to communicate well, and

• other traits such as entrepreneurial spirit, tolerance of risk and 

uncertainty, common sense, and ethics, among others.41

In addition to soft skills, stakeholders said that gig workers need business 

skills. These skills help them manage the functions that employers 

generally provide for their employees, according to one workforce board 

official. Business skills mentioned by stakeholders include the following:

 41In the past, we reported soft skills as nontechnical skills that workers need to function in 

a job. These soft skills included competencies related to problem-solving, oral 

communication, personal qualities, work ethic, and teamwork skills. See GAO, Workforce 

Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but Little Is Known Nationally 

about Training Outcomes, GAO-05-650 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005). 

Federal Programs 

and Other Sources 

Offer Training in SelfEmployment Skills 

That Stakeholders 

State Gig Workers 

Need

Gig Workers Need SelfEmployment Skills Such 

as Customer Service, 

Marketing, Digital and 

Financial Literacy, and 

Legal Skills, According to 

Stakeholders
Page 22 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

• marketing/branding/having skills in the “business of you;”

• financial literacy/management including how to

• pay taxes,

• obtain benefits, and

• estimate costs and price services;

• digital literacy; and

• understanding legal rights and obligations including how to write and 

read contracts.42

Some of the stakeholders we interviewed said that gig workers need to 

understand their tax responsibilities. In more traditional employment, 

employers are generally responsible for withholding employment taxes—

such as income tax and Social Security and Medicare taxes—for their 

employees. According to the Internal Revenue Service, however, gig 

workers, by virtue of being self-employed, must track their income and 

expenses, determine if they must pay quarterly estimated taxes,43 and 

know how to file their annual return.44 However, not understanding the 

responsibilities of their self-employed status could mean that gig workers 

will not be compliant with tax law. In the past, we reported a lower level of 

tax compliance by self-employed individuals than by employees.45 Even

workers who understand that they need to pay their own taxes but then 

fail to plan appropriately could face paying a large amount in taxes at the 

end of the year. One official at a gig company said that someone earning 

 42The Workforce Innovation Fund grant evaluation report for the TechSF Workforce 

Innovation Partnership stated that survey respondents in freelancer workshops reported 

being interested in the tax implications of working as a freelancer and how to prepare 

taxes accordingly; business strategies for freelancers, such as strategies for finding work 

and setting prices; and establishing and negotiating client agreements. 

43According to the Internal Revenue Service, quarterly estimated tax is the method used to 

pay Social Security and Medicare taxes and income tax for self-employed individuals 

because they do not have an employer withholding these taxes. 

44The Internal Revenue Service has guidance on its website to assist self-employed 

individuals, including gig workers, with filing taxes. See Internal Revenue Service SelfEmployed Individuals Tax Center at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-selfemployed/self-employed-individuals-tax-center.

45See GAO-09-717 and GAO, Tax Gap: A Strategy for Reducing the Gap Should Include 

Options for Addressing Sole Proprietor Noncompliance, GAO-07-1014 (Washington, D.C.: 

July 13, 2007).
Page 23 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

$60,000 to $80,000 a year, with no taxes withheld, may find it challenging 

to pay those taxes when they are due.

In addition, some gig workers might not be aware of these responsibilities 

because they consider themselves employees of the gig company, 

according to two stakeholders. For example, a gig company official said 

that some of its gig workers have asked to speak to the company’s 

human resources manager when they have an issue even though the 

company considers them to be self-employed business owners. The 

official said the company has to remind these workers that they are not 

represented by the company’s human resources department. Further, the 

Pew Research Center study found that an estimated 26 percent of gig 

workers who used online platforms considered themselves to be 

employees of the platform they used to find work.46 Moreover, the study 

found that workers who reported that income from gig work was 

‘important’ or ‘essential’ were much more likely to view themselves as 

employees.

Some stakeholders also said marketing was an important skill. According 

to a gig company official, marketing helps workers grow their business to 

the point where they can spend more time engaged in income-generating 

work than trying to find additional clients. Gig workers need to understand 

they are selling their skills, or, in other words, are in the “business of you,” 

and how they present themselves online can affect their opportunities, 

said one official from an organization that helps low-income workers 

navigate the gig economy. Accurate cost estimating and pricing were also 

considered to be important. A gig company official said that pricing is a 

skill that involves including all expenses, while leaving room for profit and 

accounting for some risk. 

Not all workers may be suited for gig work even when provided training in 

these skills, according to officials from one workforce board. Using a DOL 

Workforce Innovation Fund grant, this board provided a program to help 

workers become self-employed and engage in gig work. Board officials 

said about 30 to 50 percent of the participants leave the program because 

they decide that this type of work is not for them. These officials said they 

consider this a positive outcome because the training helps participants 

recognize the challenges of self-employment before taking steps that 

 46Smith, Aaron, Gig Work, Online Selling and Home Sharing. Pew Research Center. Nov. 

17, 2016.

Importance of Cost Estimating and Pricing 

in Gig Work

“If someone called me now for [a] job at a 

fixed amount, I would negotiate for hourly pay 

now that I have the experience. It would help 

a lot if people knew how to price services. 

That would be a good skill.” –Gig worker who 

provided information technology services

Source: GAO interview with gig workers in Chicago, IL │ 

GAO-17-561
Page 24 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

might have long-term consequences, such as using their life savings to 

start a business.

The 11 local workforce boards we interviewed all served gig workers in 

some way. In some cases, local workforce boards directly provided 

services to gig workers, and in other cases they indirectly provided 

services to gig workers through efforts that more broadly targeted workers 

in specific sectors or who were engaged or interested in self-employment 

(see fig. 1).47 Direct services ranged from recruitment to career services, 

including providing job coaching and workshops on finding gig work and 

developing self-employment skills.48 Overall, officials from 9 of the 11 

boards described these efforts as responses to perceived needs in their 

local labor markets.49

 47Sector strategies are partnerships with employers within one industry that bring 

government, education, training, economic development, labor, and community 

organizations together to focus on the workforce needs of an industry within a regional 

labor market. See Lindsey Woolsey and Garrett Groves, State Sector Strategies Coming 

of Age: Implications for State Workforce Policymakers (Washington, D.C.: Woolsey Group 

LLC and National Governors Association, n.d.).

48Most boards that provided direct services targeted those who were self-employed, but 

one board developed an initiative that targeted gig workers who were employees of 

staffing firms. The Atlanta workforce board worked with a local union to develop an 

initiative to help gig workers obtain short-term work, with film crews on projects that 

typically last about 6 weeks each. Because these workers were employees, we excluded 

this initiative from our analysis of programs to assist gig workers.

49In two cases, board officials identified other reasons for their efforts to serve gig workers. 

In one case, board officials said that they were approached by a gig company, and in the 

other case, board officials identified the effort to serve gig workers as a leadership priority.

Selected Workforce 

Boards and SBA 

Programs Provide SelfEmployment Skills and 

Training for Gig Workers 

Based on Perceived Local 

Area Needs
Page 25 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Figure 1: Selected Workforce Boards’ Services for Those Performing or Seeking 

Gig Work

Note: For the purposes of this report, we are identifying each workforce board by city or region.

a

These services were provided by American Job Centers that are dedicated to specific sectors. In 

addition, the Chicago board refers clients seeking financial management skills to a non-profit 

community-based organization.

b

The Seattle board has provided ongoing workshops on self-employment, offered in collaboration with 

the Small Business Administration. The Gainesville board developed a self-employment initiative, 

known as Start-Up Quest, which targeted high-skilled unemployed and dislocated workers, according 
Page 26 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

to officials, and has also developed a self-employment initiative for low- and middle-skilled clients who 

seek to perform gig work, such as child care. The Gainesville board also makes available digital gig 

platforms, such as the independently-developed OwnForce, to help gig workers manage their selfemployment. The Northern Virginia board’s self-employment initiative has targeted underemployed, 

unemployed, and dislocated workers.

Among the selected boards that offered workshops, several covered 

similar information related to self-employment. The most common topics 

included (1) marketing strategies, such as the use of social media; (2) 

financial management, including pricing and tax implications; and (3) the 

basics of contracting. In addition, one of New York City’s workshops 

provided information on the legal aspects of participating in gig work,50

and Gainesville’s provided information on obtaining work through online 

platforms.

Selected boards also provided indirect support services that were not 

specifically targeted to gig workers but served populations that could 

include them. For example, Miami’s construction sector initiative did not 

specifically train workers for gig work, but the skills it supported could be 

applied to gig work in the construction industry, according to officials.51

The Seattle board provided self-employment workshops on starting or 

growing a small business and marketing that were not specifically 

designed for gig workers but could help them obtain gig work, or involved 

skills that are transferable to gig work, according to board officials. 

Furthermore, Seattle has a tool that can help individuals determine how 

much income is needed to be self-sufficient in their local area, which 

could also be helpful for individuals engaging in gig work.52

50For example, the workshop that New York City’s board offered was designed to address 

the formation of business entities, as well as insurance and liability issues. According to 

New York City board officials, the city agency that designs and implements services is the 

New York City Department of Small Business Services.

51According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), day laborers in construction have long 

been working in the U.S. economy. These types of workers would likely be classified 

among the self-employed, according to BLS officials. In 2016, BLS found that those in 

construction occupations, at 15.1 percent, had the highest unincorporated selfemployment rate compared to 6.3 percent of all workers.

52The Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County uses a tool called the selfsufficiency calculator that can help gig workers understand how much income they need 

to be self-sufficient. This tool, available to all jobseekers, shows the income needed to 

support a family of a given composition (from a one-person household to a large family) 

without any public or private assistance. See https://www.thecalculator.org/
Page 27 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

The selected boards’ activities varied in the degree to which they focused 

on those enrolled in WIOA programs. Some board activities, such as 

recruitment events for ride-sharing services in Chicago and Dallas, were 

open to the community, including WIOA participants.53 In Chicago, the 

workforce board recruited job seekers for a ridesharing company, and 

some of them then used this work as an income source while they 

received WIOA services, scheduling it around their WIOA training 

activities, according to board officials. In Northern Virginia, by contrast, all 

participants in the board’s self-employment initiative were enrolled in 

WIOA.54

Boards varied in their practices for listing gig work at job centers. Officials 

from five local boards said that their job centers could list opportunities 

with gig companies, but they were not always sure if the job centers did 

so. State and local board officials in two states, however, cited federal 

and state provisions as the reason why they required a traditional 

employer-employee relationship to list jobs at their job centers.55 DOL 

officials said that the department does not set requirements for the types 

of jobs that states can post in their job centers, other than certain 

53Recruitment events, such as job fairs, whether for a single employer or multiple 

employers, are generally open to the community. 

54Northern Virginia’s self-employment initiative was funded through a DOL Workforce 

Innovation Fund grant. 

55In one state, officials said that job center listings are limited to those with an employeremployee relationship. In the other state, officials cited state policy and noted that 

Wagner-Peyser services are funded via employer unemployment insurance taxes and 

expressed the view that allowing gig companies to list their opportunities would be 

inconsistent with this funding mechanism. The Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended, required 

the establishment of a nationwide system of labor exchange services. Regulations 

promulgated under the Act define “employer” as “a person, firm, corporation, or other 

association or organization which currently has a location within the United States to 

which U.S. workers may be referred for employment, and which proposes to employ a 

worker at a place within the United States and which has an employer relationship with 

respect to employees under this subpart as indicated by the fact that it hires, pays, fires, 

supervises and otherwise controls the work of such employees.” 20 C.F.R. § 651.10. 
Page 28 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

nondiscrimination requirements.56 They said that states might impose 

their own limitations, but most states aim to increase the number of 

businesses listing jobs with their job centers.

While officials from all local boards that we interviewed said they provided 

services to gig workers either directly or indirectly, some nonetheless 

raised concerns about placing job seekers in gig work, questioning the 

appropriateness of this type of work under WIOA. Specifically, officials 

from some local boards said they saw their primary mission under WIOA 

as helping job seekers with barriers to employment find traditional work 

rather than task- or project-based work that may lack benefits or job 

security. Additionally, an official from one local board said that using 

WIOA training funding for services for gig workers would not be a good 

use of taxpayer dollars because the ultimate goal for job seekers is 

permanent employment. In addition, officials from five local boards noted 

that their staff may not be prepared to share information about gig work 

opportunities or may be uncomfortable doing so. Because of these 

concerns, officials from one state and one local board said that serving 

self-employed workers would require a change in “mindset” on the part of 

the workforce system as local boards may be cautious about offering 

such services.

Officials from other boards, some of which were not included in our 

analysis of board services for gig workers, expressed interest in studying 

the gig economy. For example, in November 2016, the San Diego board 

published a report examining opportunities and challenges associated 

with the gig economy, including skill and training needs and the potential 

role workforce boards could play.57 Furthermore, state boards are also 

interested in issues facing gig workers. In response to this interest, the 

56For information on nondiscrimination requirements, see Training and Employment 

Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 31-11 Update on Complying with Nondiscrimination 

Provisions: Criminal Record Restrictions and Disparate Impact Based on Race and 

National Origin; TEGL No. 37-14 Update on Complying with Nondiscrimination 

Requirements: Discrimination Based on Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex 

Stereotyping are Prohibited Forms of Sex Discrimination in the Workforce Development 

System; TEGL No. 11-14 Update on Complying with Nondiscrimination Provisions: Credit 

History Restrictions and Possible Disparate Impact Based on Race, National Origin, Sex, 

and Disability; and TEGL No. 10-14 Update on Complying with Nondiscrimination 

Provisions: Unemployment Status Restrictions and Possible Disparate Impact Based on 

Race, National Origin, Sex, and Disability. 

57San Diego Workforce Partnership, Gig Economy: Special Report (San Diego, California: 

November 2016). 
Page 29 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

National Governor’s Association has convened a group of states 

interested in the gig economy, including officials from several state 

boards, according to an association official.

The SBA also provides self-employment services for workers, including 

those who engage in gig work.58 SBA serves the self-employed through 

its SCORE mentoring program, Small Business Development Centers, 

and Women’s Business Center program. A SCORE association official 

said that the association is developing personal branding webinars that 

could appeal to gig workers, reflecting a potentially growing need for 

services. Officials at two Small Business Development Centers and a 

Women’s Business Center said that the centers provide workshops, 

counseling, and referrals at no or low cost and are serving gig workers. 

The workshops cover topics such as: business plan development; 

marketing; financial management, including taxes; and social media.

In addition to governmental programs, information on self-employment 

skills for gig workers is provided through self-employment workers’ 

associations and some gig companies. Specifically, officials from an 

association for self-employed workers said that they provide their 

members with information on non-occupational skills. They said that they 

also host experts on topics such as how to manage episodic income, file 

taxes, market their services, and negotiate with clients. Officials from 

another group serving self-employed workers said their efforts mostly 

focus on filing taxes and the information is provided through webinars and 

in-person seminars. Concern over the tax challenges of self-employed 

workers prompted the group to partner with a university-based tax policy 

center to study the issue.59

Three of the six online gig companies we interviewed also said that they 

provide some information on non-occupational skills to their gig workers. 

58We did not identify every federal program that supports self-employment. We reviewed 

SBA programs that were most likely to work with local workforce boards at the service 

delivery level. See also GAO, Entrepreneurial Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Improve 

Programs’ Collaboration, Data-Tracking, and Performance Management, GAO-12-819 

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 23, 2012) and Andrew Reamer, Federal Efforts in Support of 

Entrepreneurship: A Reference Guide, working draft, (Washington, D.C.: George 

Washington University, March 9, 2017).

59Bruckner, Caroline, Shortchanged: The Tax Compliance Challenges of Small Business 

Operators Driving the On-Demand Platform Economy. American University, Kogod School 

of Business and Kogod Tax Policy Center, Washington, D.C., n.d. 

Nongovernmental Sources 

Such as Worker 

Organizations and Some 

Gig Companies Also 

Provide Information on 

Self-Employment
Page 30 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

For example, an official at one company said that their online platform

has a learning center to help gig workers offering services through the

platform understand common business issues, such as marketing. This

learning center also includes a forum where gig workers can post

questions, share advice, and network with each other. Officials at an

online platform company that allows professional gig workers to access

and perform projects said that they provide information on pricing and tax

filing as well as a suite of business tools to help these gig workers track

tax payments and number of hours billed. Company officials said that

they provide this service to address gaps in information that hindered

these workers in the past, such as documenting a steady income for the 

purposes of obtaining a mortgage. An official at a ridesharing company

said that it has partnered with other organizations to provide information 

to help drivers, for example, by helping them understand their tax filing

obligations and save for retirement. Nongovernmental organizations have 

also played other roles in supporting training for gig workers. For

example, in New York City’s initiative, partners such as the Writer’s Guild 

of America, East and Brooklyn Workforce Innovations helped recruit 

writers for the board’s training programs. These programs integrated

workshops on financial management, marketing and sales, as well as the 

legal aspects of gig work for workers in the media and entertainment

sector, according to local board officials.
Page 31 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Several federal agencies responsible for data on the workforce and the 

economy have ongoing efforts to collect and study data about gig work as 

part of their respective missions. These efforts include:

• Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS): For the first time since 2005, BLS 

conducted a survey of contingent workers in May 201760 in an attempt 

to better understand workers engaging in alternative forms of work. In 

addition to the questions asked in previous years, the survey added 

four new questions on whether workers performed short, paid tasks in 

the previous week that were arranged through an online platform.61

While the 2017 survey data are expected to provide a more refined 

picture of such work arrangements than was previously possible, BLS 

officials said that those data will not be available at the state and local 

level because of the small sample size. In addition, BLS has a Career 

Outlook website on gig work that provides information about the 

 60This survey was conducted as a supplement to the May 2017 Current Population 

Survey.

61According to BLS officials, the 2017 Contingent Worker Supplement collected data on 

whether workers who engaged in short, paid tasks arranged through an online platform 

did so for their main job, a second job, or for additional work for pay. In addition, the 

survey collected information on whether workers whose jobs were arranged through an 

online platform were in one of four alternative employment arrangements (independent 

contractors, on-call workers, temporary help agency workers, or workers provided by 

contract companies). Information on workers’ demographics (including age, race, and 

gender), work hours, occupations, household income, and household composition will also 

be available.

Federal Agencies Are 

Collecting Data on 

the Gig Workforce, 

but Information on 

Promising Practices 

Is Not Readily 

Available

Federal Agencies Are 

Collecting Information, but 

DOL Has Not Fully 

Incorporated Gig Work into 

Its Promising Practices 

Database
Page 32 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

prevalence of gig workers and their occupations, among other 

information.62

• Department of Commerce: The Commerce Department also issued a 

report on online platforms that allow gig workers to access projects or 

tasks.63 The report used publicly available data to assess the size and 

scope of platform transactions and examine the potential effect on 

consumers and workers.

• Census Bureau: Within the Commerce Department, Census Bureau 

(Census) officials collaborated with researchers from the University of 

Maryland to study the gig economy by comparing Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) self-employment tax data and BLS self-employment 

household survey data from 1996 through 2012.64 According to 

Census officials, they are undertaking this research to better 

understand why IRS data suggest long-term growth in selfemployment while BLS data suggest little or no growth.

• Federal Reserve Board: As discussed previously, the Federal 

Reserve Board studied online and offline informal work that took place 

over a 6-month period to examine participant motives and attitudes.65

Federal Reserve officials indicated they will continue to annually 

monitor the enterprising and informal work activities of the U.S. adult 

population in the Survey of Household Economics and 

Decisionmaking (SHED) publication and public data posting.

Despite these efforts to better understand gig work at the national level, 

selected state and local workforce board officials said that they lacked 

local labor market data on gig workers and that it would be helpful if DOL 

 62For the website, see https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2016/article/what-is-the-gigeconomy.htm. 

63Rudy Telles Jr., Digital Matching Firms: A New Definition in the ‘Sharing Economy’

Space, ESA Issue Brief #01-16 (Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics 

Administration, Office of the Chief Economist, June 3, 2016).

64Katharine G. Abraham, John C. Haltiwanger, Kristin Sandusky, and James Spletzer, 

Measuring the Gig Economy: Current Knowledge and Open Issues (March 2, 2017).

65Barbara Robles and Marysol McGee, “Exploring Online and Offline Informal Work: 

Findings from the Enterprising and Informal Work Activities (EIWA) Survey,” Finance and 

Economics Discussion Series 2016-089. Washington, D.C.: Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, October 2016, https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2016.089.
Page 33 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

shared information about other boards’ efforts to serve these workers.66

Officials from all of the state boards we interviewed said that they lacked 

labor market information on gig workers.67 An official with one local 

workforce board said that getting good, reliable data about who is looking 

for gig work is a challenge. If boards do not have these data, it could be 

difficult for them to determine the prevalence of gig workers in the local 

labor market and to design services for them. Officials from the local 

workforce boards that undertook specific efforts to serve gig workers said 

that they did so because they perceived that gig workers were important 

to the local labor market (e.g., technology workers in San Francisco68 and 

media and entertainment workers in New York City) or because the local 

area faced high levels of unemployment and under-employment (e.g., 

Gainesville, Florida).69 Officials from most local boards we interviewed 

said that their job centers had not necessarily seen much interest in gig 

 66A DOL advisory group, the Workforce Information Advisory Council, has identified the 

lack of accurate and reliable labor market information for such workers as a challenge. 

According to the Council, which was established under WIOA to advise the Secretary of 

Labor on, among other things, labor market information, the nation needs a way to “define, 

measure, and assess the impact” of such work. See Workforce Information Advisory 

Council, Challenges and Opportunities in Workforce and Labor Market Information

(February 2017).

67The New York state board was not available for an interview.

68According to a San Francisco board official, other rationales for the board’s efforts to 

serve gig workers related to helping them secure income in short-term contract work as a 

stepping stone to traditional employment, helping individuals who prefer self-employment 

for reasons such as flexibility in scheduling, and helping businesses meet their talent 

needs.

69The efforts in Gainesville, Florida and Northern Virginia started in June 2012. The 

Gainesville, Florida, effort was based on a pilot in 2011, funded by the state workforce 

board, according to board officials. The Northern Virginia effort included two other 

workforce boards in the state. For an evaluation of the Northern Virginia effort, see Sonam 

Gupta, Mithuna Srinavasan, Carolyn Corea, Hautahi Kingi, and Luke Patterson, 

Evaluation of the Virginia Employment Through Entrepreneurship Consortium (VETEC)

Program, Final Report (Columbia, Maryland: IMPAQ International, June 30, 2017). For 

an evaluation of the Gainesville, Florida, effort, see Neha Nanda, Carolyn Corea, Bruno 

Gasperini, Ann Middleton, and Andres Romualdo, Evaluation of CareerSource North 

Central Florida’s Workforce Innovation Fund Grant: Startup Quest ®, Final Evaluation 

Report (Columbia, Maryland: IMPAQ International, April 28, 2017). For an economic 

impact assessment of the Gainesville, Florida, effort, see J. Antonio Villamil, Horacio 

Soberon-Ferrer, Haydee M. Carrion, and Jose Antonio Villamil IV, A Comprehensive 

Impact Assessment of CareerSource North Central Florida (Coral Gables, Florida: The 

Washington Economics Group, Inc., March 25, 2016, revised October 14, 2016).
Page 34 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

work,70 which, in their opinion, could be a reflection of the fact that clients 

are typically seeking traditional employment,71 are unaware of the gig 

economy, or may not see job centers as the appropriate place to obtain 

gig work, among other reasons. DOL officials that said gig work may be 

part of “in-demand” jobs in multiple sectors and BLS is considering how to 

quantify this work; however, to date, data in this area are limited.72 Given 

these challenges, officials at all state and local boards we interviewed 

said that it would be helpful if DOL shared information about other boards’ 

efforts to serve these workers.

DOL disseminates information on promising practices, but boards may 

not be readily able to find information related to gig workers. Federal 

internal control standards state that agency management should analyze 

information related to achieving agency goals and communicate that 

information to external parties.73 To communicate with the public 

workforce system and develop its capacity to implement innovative 

approaches, DOL uses a portal, known as WorkforceGPS, which includes 

information from program evaluations and communities of practice for 

 70Local small business development centers we interviewed also said that they currently 

serve a small number of gig workers, but that the percentage seeking services could be 

growing. Specifically, the director of the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) in 

San Francisco estimated that gig workers represented no more than about 5 percent of its 

clients, but said that they are not tracked separately from other clients. This official, 

however, noted that gig workers’ awareness of the center’s services appears to be 

growing. The San Francisco Women’s Business Center estimated that about 15 percent of 

its clients were gig workers. 

71Officials of two boards said that they serve some gig workers who are seeking traditional 

employment. Sunnyvale board officials said that, apart from short-term contractors, the gig 

workers they see are generally seeking to leave gig work and enter traditional 

employment. Additionally, Seattle board officials said that career pathways services—

sequenced training that leads to career advancement—would be available to gig workers 

seeking traditional employment.

72“In-demand” industry sectors are those that have a substantial current or potential impact 

on the state, regional, or local economy and that contribute to the growth or stability of 

other supporting businesses, or the growth of other industry sectors. DOL officials said 

local workforce boards rely on more information than national statistics when setting 

policies and priorities. For example, boards might conduct employer job vacancy surveys

or review “real-time” labor market information, which is gleaned from large numbers of 

online job postings. 

73GAO-14-704G.
Page 35 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

those interested in specific topics, among other resources.74 However, 

finding information in WorkforceGPS that is relevant to gig workers 

requires multiple searches and does not consistently yield relevant 

results. When we conducted a search of the portal, we found relevant 

documents under terms such as “self-employment” and 

“entrepreneurship,” but did not consistently find those same documents 

under search terms such as “gig,” “on-demand,” and other related 

terms.75 Given that online gig work is an emerging area for researchers 

and policymakers and there is no universally-accepted definition or term 

used to describe it, some workforce boards may not associate gig work 

with self-employment and know to search for information under that term 

unless a specific reference is provided. Linking “gig” and related terms to 

self-employment may be particularly important because DOL officials 

indicated that recent and soon-to-be issued evaluations from selfemployment initiatives funded through the Workforce Innovation Fund 

grants may yield information relevant to gig workers. Furthermore, 

although WorkforceGPS includes several communities of practice, it does 

not currently include one on gig workers. Helping workforce boards easily 

find and share promising practices relevant to gig workers would allow 

them to fully and efficiently be able to help individuals who want to 

engage in this type of work.

 74WorkforceGPS includes a resource library, information about specific programs, 

competitive grants, communities of practice on various topics, such as workers with 

disabilities, and online training, among other features, for the workforce system overall; 

see https://www.workforcegps.org/. DOL has described a previous version of this portal as 

an “online community focused on system innovation” and has encouraged applicants for 

competitive grants, such as the WIF grants, to consult it. For example, a resource on 

WorkforceGPS relevant to gig workers is a webinar on the gig economy. See “21st 

Century Job Centers: A Practitioner’s Guide,” slides and transcript retrieved from 

https://www.workforcegps.org/events/2016/05/03/08/22/21st_Century_Job_Centers-

_A_Practitioner-s_Guide.

75In March 2017, we searched WorkforceGPS using the following terms: “gig,” “ondemand,” “freelance,” “contractor,” “self-employ” to capture both “self-employed” and “selfemployment,” “unincorporated self-employed,” “project-based,” “non-employer,” “sharing 

economy,” “platform economy,” “1099 economy,” and “entrepreneur.”
Page 36 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Documenting employment and earnings outcomes for gig workers may be 

challenging for workforce boards. When participants are enrolled in WIOA 

programs, workforce boards are required to document and report 

participants’ employment and earnings outcomes.76 However, unlike 

Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage record data used to verify outcomes 

for those placed in traditional employment under WIOA, supplemental 

wage information, used to verify these outcomes for gig workers, may be 

challenging for boards to obtain.77

WIOA and DOL guidance address providing training for self-employed 

workers, such as gig workers,78 but officials from 7 of the 11 boards we 

interviewed79 said that obtaining supplemental information to verify 

outcomes for these workers could be resource-intensive because staff 

must follow-up with workers individually, and there is no guarantee that 

they will provide the requested information.80 Moreover, of the three local 

boards that used Workforce Innovation Fund grants to support services 

for gig workers, two have secured or are exploring sources of funding 

outside of WIOA to sustain the services now that the grants have expired 

and because of the difficulty of obtaining supplemental information to 

 76Boards may provide certain services for any worker, including gig workers, without 

enrolling them in a WIOA program. For example, the provision of labor market information 

and information on in-demand sectors, occupations, or nontraditional employment, does 

not require enrollment in a WIOA program and, therefore, does not trigger inclusion in 

reporting under the performance measures.

77Supplemental wage information can include the use of case management notes, 

administrative records, and surveys of participants.

78See, e.g., Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 12-10 Supporting 

Entrepreneurial and Self Employment Training through the Workforce Investment System,

(Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2010). 

79We interviewed boards during the transition from performance reporting required under 

WIA to reporting required under WIOA.

80An evaluation of San Francisco’s gig worker initiative found challenges related to 

following up with workers to obtain employment and earnings documentation. Specifically, 

participants were reluctant to provide supporting documentation for their new gig jobs due 

to privacy and tax concerns. Additionally, the evaluation found it was difficult to capture 

outcomes reflecting multiple employment placements for the same person, reflecting a 

labor market in which workers obtain multiple successive and sometimes overlapping 

short-term contracts through leads provided by workforce staff. See Leela Hebbar, Lisa Le 

Fevre, Ursula Bischoff, Stacy Wendt, Marie Broek, and Kim Austin, Evaluation of the 

TechSF Workforce Innovation Partnership (San Francisco: WestEd, July 31, 2015).

Workforce Boards Said 

They Face Challenges in 

Reporting and 

Documenting Performance 

Outcomes for Gig Workers
Page 37 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

verify outcomes.81 Officials from seven local boards that provided 

services for gig workers and three state boards also said that the 

requirements to document employment and earnings outcomes are a 

disincentive to serving those workers.82 In addition, officials from three 

state boards said that, because of the challenges in obtaining 

supplemental information, outcomes of self-employed workers, including 

gig workers, are not included in the performance reports that their states 

forward to DOL, with officials from one state specifically pointing to cost 

and data reliability issues.83

In December 2016, DOL issued additional guidance stating that under 

WIOA, states may continue to support outcomes using supplemental 

wage information.84 However, if states use supplemental wage 

information to verify employment, they must also use it to verify earnings 

outcomes, a change from prior DOL policy. DOL officials said they did not 

believe the new supplemental wage information requirements would limit 

 81Through the Workforce Innovation Fund grants, DOL supported the implementation of 

innovative approaches to the design and delivery of services, particularly for workers such 

as dislocated workers and the unemployed, and required independent evaluations of 

grantees’ projects. As a result, grantees were free to consider alternative performance 

metrics. In Northern Virginia’s case, the project focused on outcomes related to selfemployment. 

82These challenges are not new. In a 2013 report submitted to DOL on self-employment as 

an option for workers with disabilities, the authors noted: “Current federal performance 

measures for the public workforce system do not account for activities at a state or local 

level that encourage and support self-employment outcomes. If self-employment is not a 

stated and measured outcome, agencies are not likely to give it priority and visibility.” U.S. 

Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, Self-Employment for People 

with Disabilities (Washington, D.C.: December 2013).

83The potential for undercounting self-employed workers in the public workforce system 

has been identified in a previous report. In 2012, researchers examining workforce 

development initiatives in Texas cautioned that the reported outcomes likely understated 

actual employment and earnings levels in truck driving and construction because they 

were “two industries with large shares of self-employed or independent contractors who 

do not contribute to [unemployment insurance] and are therefore not included” in the data. 

See Tara C. Smith, Christopher T. King, and Daniel G. Schroeder, Evaluation of Local 

Workforce Demonstration Projects: Travis County’s REM and GEM Projects (Austin, 

Texas: Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources, Lyndon B. Johnson 

School of Public Affairs, January 2012).

84DOL Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 10-16, Performance 

Accountability Guidance for the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, (Washington, 

D.C.: December 19, 2016). According to DOL officials, under WIA the use of supplemental 

wage information was allowed under limited circumstances but under WIOA the 

departments included more explicit language about the use of supplemental wage 

information in the Joint WIOA Final Rule. 

Difficulty in Documenting Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act 

Performance Outcomes for Self-Employed 

Workers

“Freelancers and independent contractors 

have a different mindset from other workers 

and do not want to provide personal 

information, including wage data, because it is 

essentially providing information on their 

business.” — American Job Center Director

“The entrepreneurial nature and spirit of these 

self-employed individuals is one that is 

independent and resists follow up and 

verification as they are busy sustaining their 

new enterprise and focused on ‘making a go 

of it.” No real incentive for them to continue to 

follow up with public systems.” —Workforce 

Board Official

“Some people want to remain off the grid.”—

Workforce Board Official

Source: GAO interviews and correspondence with an 

American Job Center Director in San Francisco and local 

workforce board officials in Seattle and Dallas. | GAO 17 561.
Page 38 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

boards in serving self-employed workers. Rather, using supplemental 

wage information to verify employment and earnings outcomes holds 

boards accountable while allowing them to receive credit for assisting 

self-employed workers, according to DOL officials. They also said that 

workforce boards asked for updated guidance on using supplemental 

information on serving self-employed workers, which would include gig 

workers. In June 2017, DOL issued guidance on the use of supplemental 

wage information,85 which stated that worksheets, signed and attested to 

by program participants, is one acceptable type of documentation for selfemployed workers.86

While gig work is not a new phenomenon, the advent of online platforms 

has made this type of self-employment more readily accessible, possibly 

for the first time, for many individuals who are seeking new career 

opportunities or supplemental income. On the one hand, this newfound

access to gig work can help individuals across many industries, skill 

levels, and motivations seek and earn extra sources of income. On the 

other hand, some of these individuals may not be aware of its risks, such 

as financial insecurity and lack of benefits, and responsibilities, such as 

tax implications.

Easier online access to gig work is relatively new, but federal agencies 

such as DOL and SBA have had ongoing programs designed to assist 

people with the challenges of self-employment, such as marketing,

pricing, and tax implications. In recent years, DOL has funded several 

grants and programs to gather information specific to improving selfemployment programs. However, DOL’s system for receiving and sharing 

data with workforce boards, WorkforceGPS, does not consistently link 

relevant resources for these workers to terms that are currently being 

used to describe the gig economy, such as “gig.” Although there is no 

universally accepted term or definition for this type of work, 

WorkforceGPS’s organization of information under topical headers does 

not capture the connection between gig work and self-employment, 

making this information less readily available. Therefore, local boards that 

want or need to help gig workers may have limited knowledge of how or 

 85DOL Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 26-16, Guidance on the Use of 

Supplemental Wage Information to Implement the Performance Accountability 

Requirements under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, June 1, 2017. 

86These worksheets can reflect earnings net of expenses.

Conclusions
Page 39 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

where to find federal resources or may not know that they exist. Further, 

boards could benefit from other boards’ experiences in this area. Crossreferencing common terms for gig work with existing promising practices 

related to self-employment or establishing a community of practice could 

help boards share relevant information. This is especially important now 

that evaluations from DOL’s Workforce Innovation Fund grants on selfemployment have been recently released and could be instructive. In 

addition, while helping individuals obtain gig work is not the mainstay of 

the nation’s workforce system, some local boards have nonetheless 

attempted to serve these job seekers as the gig economy continues to 

evolve and in instances where such workers are a salient feature of the 

local labor market. For these particular boards, promising practices on 

documenting employment outcomes, for example, could lessen the 

challenges they face in reporting performance outcomes for gig workers 

served.

The Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration, should 

take steps to help workforce boards readily find and share information on 

promising practices related to serving gig workers by, for example, cross 

referencing promising practices on self-employment and other relevant 

practices in WorkforceGPS with terms commonly used to describe the gig 

economy, by creating a community of practice on this topic, or other 

mechanisms, as appropriate. (Recommendation 1)

Recommendation for 

Executive Action
Page 40 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

We provided a draft of this product to the Department of Labor (DOL) for 

comment. In its comments, reproduced in appendix III, DOL agreed with 

our recommendation. The department stated that it will continue to 

explore the dynamics of the gig economy and make resources available 

to the workforce system, employers, workers, researchers, policymakers, 

and others. DOL also provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. We also provided a draft of this product to 

the Departments of Commerce and Education and the Small Business 

Administration, but they did not have comments. In addition, we provided 

relevant report sections to the authors of the studies included in our report 

for their technical comments. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its 

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

appropriate congressional committees; Secretaries of the Departments of 

Commerce, Education, and Labor and the Administrator of the Small 

Business Administration; and other interested parties. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7215 or brownbarnesc@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Cindy S. Barnes

Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security 

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

We examined (1) what is known about the characteristics of gig workers 

and the work they perform, including its benefits and downsides; (2) the 

non-occupational skills and training stakeholders indicate are needed by 

gig workers and how they are provided; and (3) the challenges, if any, 

that select federal agencies and workforce development boards cite in 

providing supports for gig workers.

To address our research questions, we:

1. reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations and guidance;

2. conducted a review of relevant literature;

3. reviewed DOL’s technical assistance website and federal internal 

control standards that address communication with external parties;1

and

4. conducted interviews with federal agencies, state agencies, local 

workforce boards, gig workers, gig companies, and researchers and 

other stakeholders.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2016 to September 

2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

We reviewed the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) to identify changes in 

performance accountability requirements between the two laws. We also 

reviewed regulations from the Departments of Labor (DOL) and 

Education implementing WIOA and DOL Training and Employment 

Guidance Letters related to performance measures and self-

 1

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Review of Federal 

Laws, Regulations, 

and Guidance
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

employment,2 to determine outcome information reporting requirements 

and the guidance DOL has provided to assist boards in submitting 

documentation.

To address our first and second research questions, we conducted a 

literature review to identify key government, industry, and academic 

studies examining the gig workforce, which we characterized for the 

purposes of this report as single projects or tasks that a self-employed 

individual performs on demand for pay. Our characterization included 

both online and offline gig work. We searched relevant databases, such 

as ProQuest Research Library, Academic OneFile, Scopus, and SocSci 

Search to identify reports, dissertations, web references, working papers, 

and journal and magazine articles studies from 2010 to the present. In 

order to identify a wide range of studies, we used search terms including: 

gig economy, 1099 economy, on-demand economy, sharing economy, 

and informal work.

Our literature searches generated 383 references. In addition to the 

sources identified through literature searches, we also reviewed studies 

recommended by federal agencies, experts and internal and external 

stakeholders. We excluded from our review a total of 330 studies that 

were published prior to 2010 or did not pertain to our scope, such as 

those that primarily (1) examined worker classification issues or worker 

benefits and protections; (2) did not examine gig workers who were selfemployed or included workers providing goods or capital assets where 

the information on workers providing labor services could not be broken 

 2

DOL Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 17-05 Common Measures 

Policy for the Employment and Training Administration’s (ETA) Performance 

Accountability System and Related Performance Issues, (Washington, D.C.: February 17, 

2006); TEGL No. 12-10 Supporting Entrepreneurial and Self Employment Training through 

the Workforce Investment System, (Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2010); and TEGL 

No. 10-16, Performance Accountability Guidance for the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act, (Washington, D.C.: December 19, 2016).

Literature Review
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

out separately from those providing goods or capital assets;3 (3) included 

non-U.S. workers; or (4) focused on too narrow of a subset of the gig 

worker population (i.e. immigrants or workers only in a particular 

geographic region or occupation).

We conducted detailed reviews of the nine studies that met these initial 

screening criteria. Our reviews involved an assessment of each study’s 

research methodology, including its data quality, research design, and 

analytic techniques, as well as a summary of each study’s relevant 

findings and conclusions. We also assessed the extent to which each 

study’s data and methods were appropriate to support its findings that we 

included in our report. In addition, we conducted interviews with the 

studies’ authors, as necessary, to gain a better understanding of their 

methodology and findings. Through this process, we identified and 

reviewed four key studies that met our topical and methodological 

criteria.4

 3

Workers may provide capital assets or goods through, for example, renting a room in their 

home or selling their used or personally created items. In our review, we included only gig 

workers providing labor services because our engagement was focused on skills and 

training, which we believed was most relevant to those providing labor services, and some 

of the researchers we interviewed indicated that gig workers providing labor services had 

distinct characteristics from those providing capital assets or goods. Specifically, one 

researcher said his research group considered the distinction between capital and labor 

when describing the platform companies they included in their study. For example, 

individuals driving for ridesharing companies were defined as providing labor services 

because those individuals were being paid for driving customers, not only for owning a 

car. 

4

JPMorgan Chase Institute, Paychecks, Paydays, and the Online Platform Economy: Big 

Data on Income Volatility, Feb. 2016, see 

www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/institute/report-paychecks-paydays-and-the-onlineplatform-economy.htm.; Lueck Avery, Miriam; Baskin, Cindy; Falcon, Rod; Gentry, Eri; 

Goldman, Alex; Hamamoto, Ben; Skvirsky, Sara; and Vian, Kathi. Voices of Workable 

Futures: People Transforming Work in the Platform Economy. (Palo Alto, Calif.: Institute 

for the Future, 2016), see www.iftf.org/voices/; Robles, Barbara and McGee. Marysol 

(2016). “Exploring Online and Offline Informal Work: Findings from the Enterprising and 

Informal Work Activities (EIWA) Survey,” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2016-

089. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 

https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2016.089; and Smith, Aaron, Gig Work, Online Selling and 

Home Sharing. (Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Nov. 17, 2016), see 

www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/17/gig-work-online-selling-and-home-sharing/.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

To address our third objective, in March 2017 we searched DOL’s 

technical assistance website portal, WorkforceGPS,5 using terms related 

to gig work and reviewed federal internal control standards6 to assess 

how information related to gig workers was being communicated to 

workforce boards. Specifically, we searched the WorkforceGPS portal for 

terms related to gig work to determine if those searches would result in 

documents that could help workforce boards serve gig workers (e.g., 

documents related to self-employment). We searched on the following 

terms: “gig,” “on-demand,” “freelance,” “independent contractor,” “selfemployed,” “self-employment,” “contractor,” “unincorporated selfemployed,” “project-based,” “nonemployer,” “sharing economy,” “platform 

economy,” “digital economy,” “1099 economy,” and “entrepreneurship.” 

We selected these terms because they reflect common terms used within 

literature and by researchers and other stakeholders we interviewed to 

describe gig work. We reviewed the results of these searches and 

documented those that did not return any documents. We also reviewed 

the communities of practice list within WorkforceGPS.

Federal Agencies

To address all objectives, we conducted interviews with officials at DOL, 

including officials of the Employment and Training Administration—

headquarters and regional staff—and the Bureau of Labor Statistics; the 

Department of Education; the Department of Commerce, including the 

Census Bureau; and the Small Business Administration. We also 

interviewed officials of the Federal Reserve Board about related research 

efforts.

State and Local Workforce Development Boards

We conducted semi-structured interviews with officials at 11 local 

workforce development boards in 9 states to identify efforts to serve gig 

workers (see table 3). Local boards were selected based on a range of 

criteria, including information collected during initial interviews with DOL 

 5

Resources available on this website include research reports and evaluations as well as 

other resources, such as advisories, webinars, guides, and podcasts. Information is 

organized by program, target population, geographic location, and industry sector.

6

GAO-14-704G.

Search of DOL 

Technical Assistance 

Website

Interviews and Site 

Visits
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

and local board officials and industry groups, a private sector report with 

information on cities with the largest percentages of workers with income 

from online platforms,7 and other relevant documents, including our past 

work on local workforce boards.8 Of the 11 local workforce boards we 

interviewed, we visited five—Chicago, Illinois; Gainesville, Florida; San 

Francisco and Sunnyvale, California; and Vienna, Virginia. Overall, in 

selecting the boards that we visited in person, we considered factors such 

as the potential volume of gig workers in the local area; the range of 

board services provided to gig workers; the opportunity to learn about 

different forms of gig work (i.e., both online and offline gig work); the role 

that DOL grants may have played in supporting boards’ efforts to serve 

gig workers; and opportunities to interview gig workers and gig 

companies.9 In these locations, we also interviewed American Job Center 

directors to examine issues related to gig workers at the service delivery 

level. In our interviews with local boards, we asked about relevant 

services for gig workers, non-occupational skills and training, and the 

benefits and downsides of gig work. Our findings from these interviews 

cannot be generalized to all state or local workforce boards.

 7

See J.P. Morgan Chase Institute, The Online Platform Economy: Who Earns the Most? 

May 5, 2016.

8

GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations between Workforce Boards 

and Employers Helped Meet Local Needs, GAO-12-97 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 19, 2012).

9

Not all of these factors were relevant to all of the locations that we visited.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Table 3: Name and Location of Local Workforce Boards Interviewed

State Name and Location of Local Workforce Boards 

California Workforce Investment San Francisco San Francisco

NOVA Workforce Board Sunnyvale

Colorado Denver Workforce Development Board Denver

Florida Alachua Bradford Local Workforce Development Board, also 

known as CareerSource North Central Florida

Gainesville

The South Florida Workforce Investment Board, also known as

CareerSource South Florida

Miami

Georgia WorkSource Atlanta Atlanta

Illinois Chicago Cook Workforce Partnership Chicago

New York New York City Workforce Development Board New York City

Texas Workforce Solutions Greater Dallas Dallas

Virginia SkillSource Group Vienna

Washington Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County Seattle

Source: GAO interviews. | GAO-17-561.

In addition, we interviewed another workforce board, the San Diego 

Workforce Partnership, about a report it prepared on gig workers, Gig 

Economy: Special Report (San Diego, California: Nov. 2016). That 

interview was limited to the report’s methodology and recommendations 

and did not address issues related to the skills and training needs of gig 

workers or the benefits and downsides of gig work.

In addition, in almost all states where we interviewed local workforce 

boards, we conducted phone interviews with state workforce boards, 

state workforce agencies, or both.10 In our interviews with state agencies, 

we asked about issues associated with reporting performance outcomes 

 10Of the nine states selected for interviews, officials in one (New York state) were not 

available for an interview.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

for gig workers and sources of labor market information related to gig 

workers, among other things.

Gig Workers

In four of the locations we visited—Chicago, Illinois; Gainesville, Florida; 

and San Francisco and Sunnyvale, California—we held discussion 

groups with gig workers to obtain their perspectives on gig work. The 

discussion groups included gig workers—a total of 15 workers across all 

groups—who had obtained work through online platforms, as well as 

those who provided gig services offline. The services they offered varied 

from housecleaning, household repair, delivery, and ridesharing, to 

professional services such as consulting and software development. In 

each location, we provided participant selection criteria to local board 

officials who then recruited workers for the groups. Specifically, we 

requested that the workers be participating in or seeking gig work and be 

current or recent clients of the workforce board.

The discussion groups, which we conducted from July through October 

2016, involved structured small-group discussions designed to gain more 

in-depth information about specific issues that could not easily be 

obtained from another method, such as a survey or individual interviews. 

Our discussions included multiple groups with varying characteristics but 

some similarity on one or two homogeneous characteristics, in this case, 

experience in the gig economy.

Gig Companies

Additionally, we conducted interviews with select companies that hire gig 

workers. These companies included both online platform companies and 

companies and organizations that hired gig workers offline. We selected 

online platform companies from a private-sector database of such 

companies and interviewed the database creator to assess the process 

used to compile it. We interviewed online platform companies that 

reflected a range of services that gig workers provide, such as in the 

areas of transportation, food and goods delivery, and professional 

services. The offline companies and organizations we interviewed 

included those in food services, construction, a manufacturing incubator, 

and non-profits that serve ex-offenders and workers with disabilities. We 

interviewed gig companies about the non-occupational skills and training 

needed by gig workers, and the benefits and downsides of gig work.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Researchers and Other Stakeholders

We also conducted interviews with 30 non-federal researchers and other 

stakeholders. We identified these interviewees through our literature 

review and recommendations from experts and internal stakeholders. We 

interviewed these researchers about studies they had conducted on gig 

workers and about gig work in general, specifically the non-occupational 

skills and training needed by gig workers, and the benefits and downsides 

of gig for workers. The individual researchers and research organizations 

we interviewed included:

• Alan B. Krueger, Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Princeton 

University;

• Andrew Reamer, Research Professor, The George Washington 

University;

• Annette Bernhardt, Senior Researcher, Center for Labor Research 

and Education, University of California, Berkeley;

• Aspen Institute, Future of Work Initiative;

• Emergent Research;

• JPMorgan Chase Institute;

• Lawrence Katz, Professor of Economics, Harvard University;

• Marina Gorbis, Executive Director, Institute for the Future; and

• Penn Schoen Berland.

We also interviewed other stakeholders to obtain a range of perspectives 

on gig work, and to supplement the information obtained through our gig

worker discussion groups by obtaining the perspectives of other entities, 

some of which represent, advocate for, and share information with gig 

workers. The other stakeholders we interviewed included:

• American Association of Community Colleges;

• Beyond Jobs;

• Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness;

• Economic Policy Institute;

• Freelancers Union;

• Institute for Work and the Economy;

• Labor Market Information Institute;
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 49 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

• National Association for the Self-Employed;

• National Association of State Workforce Agencies;

• National Association of Workforce Boards;

• National Employment Law Project;

• National Governors Association;

• Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center, Women’s Business Center, 

San Francisco;

• Samaschool;

• SCORE Association;

• Small Business Development Center of San Francisco;

• The Gig Work Project;

• The Rideshare Guy blog;

• The Workers Lab;

• Walter & Elise Haas Fund; and

• Washington State University, Washington Small Business 

Development Center.
Appendix II: Archetypes of Online Gig Workers 

as Described by the Institute for the Future, 

2016

Page 50 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Table 4: Archetypes of Online Gig Workers as Described by the Institute for the Future, 2016

Name of Archetype General Motivations and Strategies for Engaging in Gig Work through Online Platforms

Entrepreneur Work and earn money for themselves; value creative freedom; thrive on thinking up new opportunities 

and ways to grow; take a long-term view; take risks or nontraditional approaches

Freelancer Get paid what they know they are worth in business transactions; enjoy freedom and work-life balance; 

orient their strategic goals around personal development

Full-time gig worker Successfully navigate a life transition; maximize income for minimum effort; achieve a sense of 

stability; find fulfillment in the workspace

Hustler Seek alternatives to conventional jobs; require short-term flexibility; optimize income day-by-day, 

week-by-week; accept inconsistent rhythms of work

Part-time pragmatist Supplement conventional income; use as a stop-gap measure between jobs; support creative pursuits; 

and provide some certainty or resilience if primary income source dissolves

Re-entry worker Make immediate progress toward goals; enjoy flexibility to take time to nourish well-being; avoid stress 

and triggers; build healthy routines; demonstrate independence; ramp up for future business

Savvy consultant Maintain an upper-middle class lifestyle or higher income; be their own boss and run a sustainable 

business; achieve a quality of life that includes taking vacations when they want or living 

internationally; and pursue growth opportunities and scale up their online enterprise

Source: Lueck Avery, Miriam; Baskin, Cindy; Falcon, Rod; Gentry, Eri; Goldman, Alex; Hamamoto, Ben; Skvirsky, Sara; and Vian, Kathi. Voices of Workable Futures: People Transforming Work in the 

Platform Economy. Institute for the Future. Palo Alto, Calif. 2016. See www.iftf.org/voices/. │ GAO-17-561

Note: In 2015 the Institute for the Future interviewed a total of 31 individuals, sets of business 

partners, and families who were using the platform economy or had recently used it. Because this 

qualitative analysis was based on a relatively small number of interviews with individuals, sets of 

business partners, and families who were currently or recently engaged in the platform economy, the 

results cannot be generalized to the larger group of gig workers. Even though some of the seven 

archetypes included workers using capital platforms, we considered all seven archetypes because 

they included at least one example of a worker providing labor services through an online platform.

Appendix II: Archetypes of Online Gig 

Workers as Described by the Institute for the 

Future, 2016
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 51 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Labor
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 52 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 53 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Cindy S. Barnes, brownbarnesc@gao.gov, (202) 512-7215

In addition to the contact named above Andrew Sherrill (Director), Clarita 

Mrena (Assistant Director), Meeta Engle (Assistant Director), Amy 

Anderson, Christopher Morehouse, Derry Henrick, Amy Sweet, Holly Dye, 

Philip Farah, Alexander Galuten, Kirsten Lauber, Serena Lo, Anna Maria 

Ortiz, and Mimi Nguyen made significant contributions to this report. In 

addition, key support was provided by Nora Boretti, Elizabeth Curda, 

Julianne Cutts, Clifton Douglas, Adam Gomez, Charlie Jeszeck, Yvonne 

Jones, Michael Kniss, Benjamin Licht, Karen O’Conor, William Shear, 

Almeta Spencer, Tom Short, and Ariel Vega.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 54 GAO-17-561 Workforce Training

Contingent Workforce: Size, Characteristics, Earnings, and Benefits. 

GAO-15-168R. Washington, D.C.: April 20, 2015.

Workforce Investment Act: Local Areas Face Challenges Helping 

Employers Fill Some Types of Skilled Jobs. GAO-14-19. Washington, 

D.C.: December 2, 2013.

Entrepreneurial Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Improve Programs’ 

Collaboration, Data-Tracking, and Performance Management. 

GAO-12-819. Washington, D.C.: August 23, 2012.

Workforce Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations between Workforce 

Boards and Employers Helped Meet Local Needs. GAO-12-97. 

Washington, D.C.: January 19, 2012.

Related GAO Products

(100670)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.