Office of Inspector General—Office of Audit

 

 

 ____________________________ 

EMPLOYMENT AND 

TRAINING ADMINISTRATION 

RECOVERY ACT: PLANNING AND COORDINATION 

OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WITH 

FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS 

NEEDED IMPROVEMENT 

This audit was performed by WithumSmith+Brown PC, CPAs, under contract to the 

Office of Inspector General, and by acceptance, it becomes a report of the Office of 

Inspector General. 

Assistant Inspector General for Audit 

Date Issued: September 30, 2011 

Report Number: 18-11-010-03-001 
 

 

U. S. Department of Labor 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Audit 

BRIEFLY... 

Highlights of Report Number: 18-11-010-03-001, issued to 

the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training. 

WHY READ THE REPORT 

Congress enacted the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) to promote 

economic recovery and increase employment and training 

opportunities. The Recovery Act did not specifically 

require coordination of activities related to infrastructure 

investment funded by the Act. However, ETA issued 

TEGL 14-08 to states and local workforce areas which 

provided guidance on implementation of WIA funding in 

the Recovery Act and encouraged collaboration between 

the public workforce investment system and other 

agencies that received Recovery Act funds. ETA also 

undertook several planning initiatives to coordinate 

workforce development activities with federal 

infrastructure investments. 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited the 

coordination activities that were planned and conducted at 

the federal, state, and local levels between workforce 

investment activities and federal infrastructure 

investments funded by the Recovery Act. 

WHY OIG CONDUCTED THE AUDIT 

Our audit objectives were to answer the following 

questions: 

1. What planning efforts have the Department of 

Labor, states, and local workforce investment 

agencies performed to coordinate workforce 

development activities with federal infrastructure 

investments elsewhere in the Recovery Act? 

2. What projects and other cross-collaboration 

activities have the states, and local workforce 

agencies undertaken in terms of spending 

Department of Labor Recovery Act funding for 

workforce development activities that support 

federal infrastructure investments elsewhere in the 

Recovery Act? 

3. What has been the impact of these coordination 

efforts in terms of employing or re-employing 

workers through these projects? 

READ THE FULL REPORT 

To view the report, including the scope, methodology, and 

full agency response, go to: 

http://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2011/18-11-010-

03-001.pdf 

September 2011 

RECOVERY ACT: PLANNING AND COORDINATION OF 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WITH 

FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS NEEDED 

IMPROVEMENT 

WHAT OIG FOUND 

We found that even though there was no specific 

requirement to coordinate the workforce system with 

federal infrastructure investments, several planning 

initiatives were undertaken at the federal, state, and local 

levels to encourage cross-collaboration. However, we 

found the implementation of these planning efforts was 

generally informal and not well-coordinated. 

ETA issued guidance to the workforce system 

recommending strategies and encouragement to link to 

other federal infrastructure investments. The Secretary of 

Labor issued a letter directly to each Governor requesting 

new jobs generated by the Recovery Act be listed on the 

state jobs banks, and two agreements were signed 

between DOL and other federal agencies to initiate 

collaborative projects. However, the agreements were 

never implemented. 

Cross-collaboration activities did happen in some of the 

states and local areas. However, we found state agencies 

faced significant challenges to do more because 1) staff 

shortages and furloughs hampered implementing new 

Recovery Act programs; 2) not all state agencies required 

contractors to post Recovery Act jobs on the state jobs 

banks; and 3) state recovery task forces focused primarily 

on meeting Recovery Act reporting requirements. 

WHAT OIG RECOMMENDED 

We recommended that the Assistant Secretary for 

Employment and Training continue to strengthen crosscollaboration efforts across federal and state agencies and 

encourage states and local areas to continue to pursue 

collaboration as part of their regular practice. 

The Assistant Secretary agreed with our recommendation 

and provided examples of how ETA is moving in a 

direction consistent with the recommendation. 
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 
 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

for the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Table of Contents 

Independent Auditors’ Report...................................................................................... 1
 

Results in Brief.............................................................................................................. 2
 

Objective 1 — What planning efforts have the Department of Labor, states, 

and local workforce investment agencies performed to 

coordinate workforce development activities with federal 

infrastructure investments elsewhere in the Recovery Act?............ 5
 

Several planning efforts were initiated to coordinate workforce 

development activities with federal infrastructure investments; however, 

implementation was generally informal and not well-coordinated......................... 5
 

Finding 1 – Implementation of Planning Efforts for Coordination Were 

Generally Informal and Not Well-Coordinated Which 

Produced Uneven Results ................................................................ 7
 

Objective 2 — What projects and other cross-collaboration activities have 

the states and local workforce agencies undertaken in terms 

of spending Department of Labor Recovery Act funding for 

workforce development activities that support federal 

infrastructure investments elsewhere in the Recovery Act?.......... 12
 

Planned coordination activities and cross-collaboration did not happen as 

intended due to significant challenges................................................................ 12
 

Objective 3 — What has been the impact of these coordination efforts in 

terms of employing or re-employing workers through these 

projects? ............................................................................................. 16
 

The data to analyze the impact of coordination is not available. ........................ 16
 

Recommendation ........................................................................................................ 17
 

Appendix A Background ..................................................................................... 21
 

Appendix B Objectives, Scope, Methodology, and Criteria ................................ 23
 

Appendix C Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................... 27
 

Appendix D ETA’s Response to Draft Report..................................................... 29
 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

for the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
Independent Auditors’ Report 

 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

WithumSmith+Brown 

A Professional Corporation 

Certified Public Accountants and Consultants 

8403 Colesville Road, Suite 340 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 USA 

301.585.7990. Fax 301.585.7975 

www.withum.com 

Additional Offices in New Jersey 

New York and Pennsylvania 

Independent Auditors’ Report 

September 30, 2011 

Ms. Jane Oates 

Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

The Department of Labor (DOL) was provided funding from the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) (P.L. 

111-5) signed into law on February 17, 2009. The Recovery Act 

funding was provided to, among other things, increase employment 

and training opportunities. On March 18, 2009, the Employment 

and Training Administration (ETA) issued Training and Employment 

Guidance Letter (TEGL) 14-08 to states and local workforce areas 

on implementation of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funding 

in the Recovery Act. ETA strongly recommended collaboration 

between the public workforce investment system and other 

agencies that received Recovery Act funds. WithumSmith+Brown 

(WS+B), under contract with the DOL OIG, audited the coordination 

activities that were planned and conducted at the federal, state, and 

local levels for the period from the inception of the Recovery Act 

through the end of fieldwork. 

Our audit objectives were to answer the questions (1) What 

planning efforts have the Department of Labor, states, and local 

workforce investment agencies performed to coordinate workforce 

development activities with federal infrastructure investments 

elsewhere in the Recovery Act?; (2) What projects and other 

cross-collaboration activities have the states and local workforce 

agencies undertaken in terms of spending Department of Labor 

Recovery Act funding for workforce development activities that 

support federal infrastructure investments elsewhere in the 

Recovery Act?; and (3) What has been the impact of these 

coordination efforts in terms of employing or re-employing workers 

through these projects? 

A member of HLB International. A world-wide organization of accounting firms and business advisers. 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

1 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

Results in Brief 

 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

The audit included a review of the WIA Recovery Act program planning processes at 

ETA headquarters, the United States (U.S.) Departments of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), Energy (DOE), and Education (ED), seven state workforce 

investment boards (SWIBs), seven local workforce investment boards (LWIBs), four 

state recovery task forces or similar entities, five state housing agencies, four state 

departments of transportation, and two state energy departments. The seven states 

included California, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Florida, Illinois, and Georgia. The audit 

also included surveys conducted with these entities and a review of other corroborating 

data. Recovery Act funding provided by ETA to the seven states reviewed totaled 

approximately $1.4 billion for WIA related activities (40% of total Recovery Act funds for 

this purpose). 

WS+B conducted this performance audit 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. Our objectives, scope, methodology, and criteria are more fully detailed 

in Appendix B. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

The Recovery Act did not specifically require coordination of activities related to 

infrastructure investments funded by the Recovery Act. However, two of its purposes 

were to preserve and create jobs and to assist those most impacted by the recession. 

Therefore, even though there was no specific requirement to do so, ETA undertook 

several planning initiatives to coordinate workforce development activities with federal 

infrastructure investments funded by the Recovery Act. WS+B found these crosscollaboration efforts were generally informal and not well coordinated throughout the 

workforce system. 

ETA promptly issued guidance to the workforce system regarding federal infrastructure 

investments that included recommended strategies and encouragement to link to other 

federal infrastructure investments. To reinforce this message, the Secretary of Labor 

issued a letter directly to each Governor requesting the Governors’ leadership by 

ensuring that all new jobs generated through the Recovery Act be listed on state jobs 

banks, and ETA performed “readiness reviews” of all states and 153 local entities that 

encouraged coordination with other agencies. In addition, ETA entered into two 

agreements with three other federal agencies receiving Recovery Act infrastructure 

investment funds. However, because implementation of these planning efforts was 

generally informal and not well-coordinated, they produced uneven results. Additionally, 

we found the two agreements between the DOL and other federal agencies were never 

implemented as planned, although four collaborative projects related to infrastructure 

investments did occur between the DOL and other federal agencies. 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

2 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Regarding projects and activities undertaken at the state and local levels, while we 

found project specific activities did occur, planned coordination activities and 

cross-collaboration did not happen across-the-board as ETA intended. This occurred 

because 1) state agencies faced significant challenges to implement new programs and 

spend Recovery Act funding quickly while experiencing staff shortages and furloughs, 2) 

not all state agencies receiving infrastructure investment funding required Recovery Act 

contractors to post new jobs to the workforce development system’s public jobs banks, 

and 3) the state recovery task forces established to help coordinate these efforts 

primarily ended up focusing on reporting and compliance in accordance with the Office 

of Management and Budget’s new Section 1512 reporting requirements. Four out of 

seven LWIBs we reviewed participated in projects and other cross-collaboration 

activities in terms of spending Recovery Act funding for workforce development 

activities that support federal infrastructure investments. 

Regarding the impact of coordination efforts on the employment or re-employment of 

workers, we determined federal, state, and local level officials were not required to 

specifically track the impact of coordination efforts on the employment or re-employment 

of individual participants other than existing program outcome measurements. Through 

surveys, we obtained anecdotal information on specific outcomes at two of the seven 

LWIBs that resulted from coordination activities related to Recovery Act infrastructure 

investments. These outcomes included a) participation in a transportation construction 

project, which resulted in the hiring of WIA participants; b) the training and placement of 

participants in weatherization project-related jobs; and c) participation in an 

apprenticeship program and placement of graduates into a road construction 

apprenticeship. However, based on this anecdotal evidence that we collected, we could 

not determine, the impact of any coordination efforts that did occur. 

We recommend the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training continue to 

strengthen cross-collaboration efforts across federal and state agencies and encourage 

states and local areas to continue to pursue collaboration as part of their regular 

practice. 

In response to our draft report, the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training 

agreed with our recommendation and provided examples of activities it is undertaking to 

move in a direction consistent with the recommendation. The Assistant Secretary’s 

response is included in its entirety as Appendix D. 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

3 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

4 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

RESULTS AND FINDING 

Objective 1 — What planning efforts have the Department of Labor, states, and 

local workforce investment agencies performed to coordinate 

workforce development activities with federal infrastructure 

investments elsewhere in the Recovery Act? 

Several planning efforts were initiated to coordinate workforce development 

activities with federal infrastructure investments; however, implementation was 

generally informal and not well-coordinated. 

Although the Recovery Act does not require coordination of activities related to 

infrastructure investments funded by the Act, two of its purposes are to preserve and 

create jobs and to assist those most impacted by the recession. Inherent in those 

objectives is the intent that this funding be used to create and preserve jobs in many 

sectors of the economy and provide additional resources for training and placement 

services to unemployed workers. Because cross-collaboration was not a legislative 

requirement, we found implementation of planning initiatives were generally informal 

and not well-coordinated. 

Department of Labor Planning Efforts 

DOL undertook several planning initiatives to coordinate workforce development 

activities with federal infrastructure investments funded by the Recovery Act. ETA 

issued guidance to the state and local workforce agencies regarding federal 

infrastructure investments and entered into two agreements with three other Federal 

agencies receiving Recovery Act infrastructure investment funds. The Secretary also 

sent a letter to each Governor requesting that Recovery Act jobs be posted on public 

jobs banks, and 24 Governors implemented this change. In addition, ETA conducted 

209 on-site state and local readiness reviews to determine implementation issues for 

the Recovery Act, including coordination issues. 

To implement certain aspects of the Recovery Act relating to Workforce Investment Act 

activities and funding, the ETA issued TEGL 14-08 in March 2009, to state and local 

workforce agencies. Through this guidance, ETA strongly encouraged workforce 

agencies and local workforce investment boards (LWIBs) to review other parts of the 

Recovery Act with an eye toward identifying activities to be carried out through the 

Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, 

Transportation, and other agencies; to monitor these funding streams at the state level 

in an effort to coordinate workforce development activities and maximize the return on 

each investment in terms of the number of workers employed or re-employed through 

such projects. 

TEGL 14-08 required states to modify their plans for the implementation of the 

Recovery Act and submit the modified plans to ETA for approval. As part of the 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

5 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

submission, Attachment A, Questions for WIA / Wagner Peyser State Plan 

Modifications, required states to submit responses to specific questions, including a 

description of how workforce agencies planned to interrelate on workforce, economic 

development, and education issues, and how the state would ensure cross-agency 

collaboration so that workforce investments are fully tied to other investments funded by 

the Recovery Act outside of workforce development. 

The TEGL 14-08 also provided an example for LWIBs, suggesting collaboration with 

local government agencies and employers creating jobs in road and bridge projects, 

and energy efficiency programs such as the weatherization program, among others. 

However, even though ETA provided planning guidance and assistance to the states, 

the implementation of cross-collaboration efforts was generally informal and not wellcoordinated so results were uneven as indicated by the following outcomes found. 

At the Federal level, DOL and HUD issued a joint letter announcing the establishment of 

a pilot program to link public housing residents with their LWIB and its One-Stop system 

in May 2009. Under the Recovery Act, Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) received 

funding to improve the energy efficiency of public housing communities across the 

country and to create and preserve jobs. In August 2009, ETA issued a notice to the 

state workforce agencies and LWIBs on the subject of the partnership between DOL 

and HUD to alert the workforce investment system to be prepared to work with 

representatives from local PHAs to connect public housing residents to One-Stop 

Career Centers. 

We interviewed officials at HUD and DOL, as well as two PHAs, regarding this 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and found that while a pilot program was 

conducted in one local area in the United States, the outcome of the pilot program was 

not successful, and therefore, this program was not replicated. The lack of success of 

the pilot was attributed to the competency gap between the education levels required to 

participate in applicable One-Stop training programs compared to the educational 

competency levels of many PHA residents based on administered tests. HUD is now 

pursuing best practices across the country on how to effectively address this gap. In 

addition, ETA was involved in making a regional presentation to educate public housing 

officials about the workforce system. HUD indicated that collaboration with ETA is 

important to enable them to meet the training needs of public housing residents, but 

further collaboration activities are subject to available resources at both agencies and at 

the local PHAs and WIBs. 

Additionally, an MOU between the ED, DOE, and Labor was issued as a non-binding 

expression of intent to collaborate on linking the U.S. workforce to jobs, training and 

education opportunities funded by the Recovery Act and annual appropriations. This 

MOU is in effect for a period of 5 years, does not authorize or obligate funds, and is not 

legally enforceable. Its objective was to efficiently and effectively advance existing and 

future training and education programs; avoid duplication of effort, fill skill deficiencies 

and optimize matching of training programs with employment needs; provide career 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

6 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

 

 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

ladders and pathways; and provide for a skilled workforce in clean energy and energy 

efficiency. 

The MOU was to establish a framework to assist these Departments in collaboration 

and information exchange. The Departments were to establish an Oversight Committee 

to facilitate and oversee the implementation efforts and provide periodic reports to the 

Departments on the status of collaborative efforts. We interviewed officials at DOL, ED, 

and DOE regarding this MOU, and found that it was never implemented as planned. 

For example, the Oversight Committee was never established, and quarterly meetings 

were not conducted as intended. 

However, we found several collaborative projects related to infrastructure investments 

that did occur between DOL and DOE. DOL participated in the Middle Class Task 

Force Council on Environmental Quality report, Recovery Through Retrofit1 by 

contributing workforce expertise in designing training programs for workers and 

developing work safety guidelines. DOL also encouraged LWIBs to participate as 

supporting partners in the Energy Regional Innovation Cluster (E-RIC) in Philadelphia, 

Pa., to recruit, train, and place workers in jobs created in the E-RIC. In addition, several 

projects funded through ETA’s Recovery Act discretionary grants related to green job 

projects also involved on-going collaboration between DOL and DOE. 

Officials at both HUD and DOE stated that many cross-collaborative initiatives at the 

federal level were developed from informal networks between individuals across 

agencies. Because of the lack of an Oversight Committee, some of the challenges 

noted were not knowing who to reach out to, resource constraints, and differences in 

the populations served. 

Finding 1 – Implementation of Planning Efforts for Coordination Were Generally 

Informal and Not Well-Coordinated Which Produced Uneven Results 

Although ETA encouraged states to identify strategies for coordinating with other state 

agencies and took initiative to develop partnerships with other federal agencies at the 

national level, the implementation of these planning efforts was generally informal and 

not well-coordinated which produced uneven results. This occurred due to stretched 

resources, the lack of a legislative requirement, and the lack of prior existing 

relationships between agencies to facilitate collaboration efforts. Additionally, we found 

the two agreements with other federal agencies were never implemented as planned, 

although several collaborative projects related to infrastructure investments did occur 

between DOL and other federal agencies. 

The objective of this project was to develop a Workforce Guide for Home Energy Upgrades. It involved 

collaboration between the Departments of Energy, Education, and Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, the 

Small Business Administration, and other agencies. 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

7 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 

1 
 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

State Level Planning Efforts 

State level planning efforts were uneven across the states selected for audit and in most 

instances did not reflect a coordinated cross-collaboration effort between state agencies 

receiving Recovery Act funding. We performed structured interviews and reviewed 

related documents and web sites in the states of 1) California, 2) Illinois, 3) Michigan, 4) 

Florida, 5) Tennessee, 6) Ohio, and 7) Georgia. Our objective was to determine the 

extent of planning efforts to coordinate workforce development activities with federal 

infrastructure investments funded by the Recovery Act. 

For each of the seven states, we performed structured interviews of officials from the 

state workforce agency / state workforce investment board (SWIB), state recovery 

taskforce or entity, state transportation or energy agency, state housing agency, and 

LWIB. We reviewed other corroborating information and documents provided to us 

including states’ modified strategic plans, local plans, MOUs or other agreements 

between agencies, project outcomes, and reports submitted to the www.recovery.gov 

website. 

For the seven states in our sample, we also analyzed the modified State plan, including 

TEGL 14-08 Attachment A, Questions for WIA / Wagner Peyser State Plan 

Modifications, to determine how they specifically addressed the planned coordination 

activities between workforce development activities and federal infrastructure 

investments. All of the states identified activities they planned to perform in this area, 

which included meetings with other state agencies, and specific projects that would be 

explored. The following summarizes the relevant aspects of the state plans: 

State Relevant Coordination Activities Planned 

California California would create the Green Collar Jobs Council, which includes 

representatives from energy, education, and workforce-related State 

agencies, as well as environmental organizations. 

Michigan The Michigan Department of Energy, Labor, & Economic Growth 

(DELEG), would create a strategic alliance uniting energy, workforce, 

and economic growth with many key initiatives to ensure a continuation 

of education and training opportunities including the Road Construction 

Apprenticeship Readiness (RCAR) project, among others. 

Illinois The Illinois Workforce Investment Board would create task forces for 

the following key sectors of the economy: healthcare, manufacturing, 

transportation and logistics, information technology, and agriculture. 

The Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunities and the 

Illinois Workforce Partnership will sponsor a series of Recovery Act 

regional roundtable meetings with leaders in each of these sectors. 

Florida The Florida workforce system would be in active dialogue and 

relationship with the state’s energy offices and Department of 

Community Affairs in the area of energy efficiency and weatherization 

and the related Recovery Act funds. Connection with the Department 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

8 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

State Relevant Coordination Activities Planned 

of Environmental Protection would also occur with the water 

associations in Florida and nationwide for water infrastructure projects. 

From a workforce perspective, Florida would look closely at other 

potential infrastructure projects, like roadways, bridges, and other 

improvement projects. As part of the “Accelerate Florida” initiative, the 

Governor emphasized that maintaining, constructing, and expanding 

Florida’s transportation system contributes to economic security. These 

types of projects can be labor intensive and Florida would work to 

ensure that a ready supply of workers would be available to support 

the projects as the funding becomes available. 

Ohio State agencies would interact on workforce and economic 

development issues in a variety of forums, including regularly 

scheduled and ad hoc inter-agency meetings designed to improve 

cross-agency communication and collaboration. Additionally, quarterly 

meetings of the Governor’s Workforce Policy Advisory Board would 

provide cabinet-level officials with the opportunity to coordinate 

workforce development programs and activities. 

Georgia A state-level Recovery Act Implementation Group was established to 

discuss strategies and develop cross-agency teams to leverage 

Recovery Act funds. 

Tennessee The Volunteer State Solar Initiative, a comprehensive solar-energy and 

economic-development program, would use up to $62.5 million in 

federal Recovery Act funds to advance job creation, education, 

research, and renewable-power production in Tennessee. WIA state 

funding would support on-the-job training for eligible new hires. 

Clean Energy and Green Jobs - The state level agencies would work 

together to use new resources through the Recovery Act and the 

Tennessee Energy, Industry and Construction Consortium to recruit 

new industries and develop career awareness to Tennessee. Funding 

strategies, policy, and education would be discussed in a statewide 

conference. 

Source: FY2009 State WIA Plan Documents 

In addition to the state plan analysis, our discussions with state workforce officials 

investigated the extent of communication about planning activities between different 

state agencies and local agencies. Although not required by ETA, four SWIBs provided 

communication in the form of guidance/technical assistance to LWIBs regarding federal 

infrastructure recovery projects. Specifically, Tennessee and Illinois held training 

meetings with LWIBs that included discussion about coordination activities. Ohio 

provided guidance via Policy Letters to LWIBs and required Recovery Act transportation 

job postings on the state job bank website. The California Employment Development 

Department (EDD) provided guidance/technical assistance regarding federal 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

9 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

infrastructure recovery projects and attended meetings with other agencies and LWIBs 

regarding how coordination should occur. 

The other state agencies, such as housing and transportation reported they did not 

receive any communication from federal or state officials regarding coordination of 

efforts between workforce development and federal infrastructure investments, except 

for the Tennessee housing agency that received guidance from the state recovery task 

force. 

Local Level Planning Efforts 

Local level planning efforts were primarily driven by individual initiative and informal 

networks that already existed, rather than a systematic, organized effort. Many LWIBs 

were also required to submit modified local plans to the states to describe how they 

planned to spend Recovery Act and regular WIA funding. We reviewed the modified 

local plans submitted to the state for the LWIBs in our sample. Although some local 

plans did make reference to coordinating with other agencies, these were very general 

statements and none of the plans reviewed identified any specific projects or activities 

relating to cross-collaboration on Recovery Act infrastructure investments. The relevant 

aspects of the local plans are summarized below: 

LWIB Relevant Aspects of Plan 

City of Detroit WIB Described the green jobs that have been identified as 

(Michigan) high-growth occupations according to the State’s regional 

analysis. The local plan also describes coordination 

efforts with transportation on referral services. 

Tennessee LWIB Implemented a collaborative effort between private 

industries, local education boards, local housing 

authorities, and other local governments to operationally 

define programs and activities. This collaboration would 

encourage the entities to work together to implement the 

comprehensive local adult and youth service delivery 

systems. 

Central Ohio LWIB The Ohio modified state plan specifically required the 

central Ohio LWIB to participate as an active member of 

the inter-agency meetings to further strengthen 

partnerships with agencies and respective agency staff. 

Los Angeles City WIB Identified construction needs as an employment 

(California) opportunity. 

Cook County WIB (Illinois) Required delegate agencies to coordinate outreach and 

recruitment with WIA mandated partners, the business 

community, community-based organizations, non-forprofit/for-profit organizations, educational programs and 

governmental agencies. 

Atlanta WIB (Georgia) Addressed the availability of services to be coordinated 

with other providers to avoid duplication of funding. 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

10 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

LWIB Relevant Aspects of Plan 

South Florida WIB The Community Workforce Program (CWP) is a 

partnership with Miami-Dade County’s Agency to provide 

construction trades training to residents. The Program 

integrated the processes of recruitment, development and 

training to improve time-to-productivity for the County’s 

Capital Construction workforce. In practice, this means 

construction contracts, such as the Marlins stadium, 

would require a certain percentage of residents be 

employed. 

Source: FY2009 Local WIB Plan Documents 

For each of the seven states in our sample, we selected one LWIB in each state to 

perform structured interviews and reviewed other corroborating data relating to 

coordination activities with federal infrastructure investments. Four LWIBs we 

interviewed planned specific coordination activities, including the City of Detroit, South 

Florida, East Tennessee, and Central Ohio LWIBs. These planned coordination 

activities included transportation projects, neighborhood revitalization, health and 

medical information technology training, weatherization, and construction training 

projects. 

However, weaknesses in implementation of these planning efforts at the federal, state, 

and local level produced uneven collaborative results between workforce investment 

activities and federal infrastructure investments. Had there been a legislative 

requirement for greater cross-collaboration across agencies at all levels, more effective, 

formalized efforts may have resulted. 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

11 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Objective 2 — What projects and other cross-collaboration activities have the 

states and local workforce agencies undertaken in terms of 

spending Department of Labor Recovery Act funding for workforce 

development activities that support federal infrastructure 

investments elsewhere in the Recovery Act? 

Planned coordination activities and cross-collaboration did not happen as 

intended due to significant challenges. 

Although project specific activities did occur at the state and local levels, we found that 

coordination activities and cross-collaboration at the state and local levels did not 

happen as planned. State agencies faced several significant challenges, which 

impeded cross-collaboration activities; agencies receiving infrastructure investment 

funding did not need to utilize the workforce development system to staff projects; and 

the state recovery task forces established to help coordinate these efforts primarily 

ended up focusing on reporting and compliance. 

State Level Activities 

The seven states we audited received the following amounts of Recovery Act funding 

from the Employment and Training Administration in WIA program funds for workforce 

development activities: 

State Amount 

California $ 535,617,440 

Michigan 197,117,236 

Illinois 173,094,909 

Florida 165,019,783 

Ohio 153,073,770 

Georgia 99,994,007 

Tennessee 71,721,699 

Total $1,395,638,844 

Three of the seven state workforce agencies stated that they participated in projects 

and other cross-collaboration activities in terms of spending Recovery Act funding for 

workforce development activities that support federal infrastructure investments, as 

follows: 

•	 The California SWIB provided training opportunities as part of the California 

Energy Commission to address California’s green initiative, and the SWIB lead 

the Green Collar Job Council to help workers gain access to jobs while 

supporting the State-wide energy efficiency strategies, such as green 

infrastructure construction and retrofit. 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

12 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

•	 Michigan’s Department of Energy, Labor, and Economic Growth (DELEG) placed 

energy auditors for the Bureau of Energy, trained statewide health record 

managers for the Community Health Agency, and mandated all jobs to be posted 

to the Talent Bank system used by the workforce development agencies, among 

other projects. The modified Michigan state plan describes the Road 

Construction Apprenticeship Readiness Program (RCAR) as a 

pre-apprenticeship program to provide personalized training in job readiness 

skills necessary in construction trades over a 3-year period. The RCAR program 

was developed and implemented through a partnership including faith and 

community-based partners, the Michigan Department of Transportation, the 

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth, trade unions and 

local Michigan Works Agencies (LWIBs). This program is organized by the state 

and implemented by the LWIBs, and includes formal agreements regarding 

provisions of services. The Michigan SWIB was not able to provide information 

concerning the funds obligated or expended in this program as they did not 

maintain this data. 

•	 Tennessee worked with other state agencies and institutions of higher education 

on several downtown revitalization projects. The SWIB also collaborated with the 

State Department of Energy on a solar institute to train solar installers. The SWIB 

coordinated activities with the State Department of Human Resources, other 

State agencies, and LWIBs to implement a pilot program in one county using 

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funding from the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to subsidize employment with 

other State agencies and private employers. The SWIB handled eligibility, while 

the LWIB handled personnel placement. Approximately $10.8 million was spent 

through this program, and the largest number of employees placed within state 

agencies was the Tennessee Department of Transportation. Plans were then 

developed for four additional counties, each receiving between $2 and $4 million, 

and the SWIB contracted directly with the LWIB in these counties for the 

provisions of these services. 

Ohio, Illinois, Florida and Georgia did not participate in federal infrastructure investment 

projects with other agencies at the state level. SWIB officials reported to us that they 

coordinated with other state agencies on non-infrastructure related projects, did not 

receive any requests from other agencies on coordination of infrastructure investments, 

did participate in recovery task forces, and used Recovery Act funding primarily to 

provide local workforce areas additional capacity for ongoing activities. 

The states faced several significant challenges, which hindered their ability to undertake 

these types of coordination activities. Some of these challenges included the following: 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

13 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

States Reporting 

Challenge Challenge 

California 

The need to spend funds quickly in accordance with the Michigan

Recovery Act while coordinating with other agencies takes time Florida 

they did not have. Georgia 

Tennessee 

California 

Michigan Statewide staffing problems presented obstacles to task force Illinois participation while trying to get programs started. Florida 

Georgia 

Michigan 

Illinois No information sharing between agencies and lack of prior Florida coordination efforts hampered collaboration. Georgia 

Tennessee 

We also found when state workforce agencies did not have prior existing relationships 

with other state agencies, coordinating activities were less likely to occur. The 

coordination activities were often the result of individuals who had connections or 

contacts with another state agency in a personal capacity, rather than a result of a 

systematic or organized effort. 

Another factor impeding collaboration efforts was that the Recovery Act infrastructure 

investments received by other state agencies (e.g. Transportation, Energy) did not 

create a need for workforce development services, such as training or job placement. 

For example, none of the four State Departments of Transportation in our sample 

identified the need to reach out to the state workforce agencies to train or place workers 

for jobs. The transportation funding was generally passed down to contractors who 

either had already laid off workers or were struggling to stay in business. The 

contractors therefore did not have workforce development needs that would have 

resulted in these types of coordination activities. 

Recovery Act task forces did not function as intended as it relates to cross-collaboration 

efforts for Recovery Act infrastructure projects. Each of the seven states in our sample 

had a statewide task force or similar entity focused on economic recovery and the 

Recovery Act. We contacted these taskforces and found that, although in many cases 

they were designed to foster collaboration efforts, they primarily ended up focusing on 

Section 1512 reporting and other compliance issues required as a result of the 

Recovery Act. In three states, these task forces were no longer in existence and in the 

remaining four states they had been significantly reduced in size and scope. 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

14 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Local Level Activities 

Certain specific programs and projects were initiated at the local levels relating to 

cross-collaboration efforts. Four out of seven LWIBs in our sample stated they 

participated in projects and other cross-collaboration activities in terms of spending 

Recovery Act funding for workforce development activities that support federal 

infrastructure investments. 

The City of Detroit WIB (Michigan) identified nine programs including collaboration with 

the Michigan Department of Transportation in training classes and a weatherization 

training program through the Detroit Department of Human Services. These nine 

programs stemmed from a variety of initiatives. Two of the programs were specifically 

listed in the Michigan modified state plan and implemented by the LWIBs. Local private 

organizations approached the LWIB to join as a partner in three of the programs. The 

remaining four programs resulted from a variety of governor-lead task forces, which 

prompted communication between state agencies. 

The South Florida Workforce Investment Board identified two programs including 

training WIA participants for healthcare infrastructure investments and transportation 

infrastructure investments such as the construction of the Port of Miami tunnel. These 

two programs resulted from the State’s Recovery Act Task Force taking a strategic 

approach to local communities bringing local leaders together to dialogue across 

geographic boundaries. 

The East Tennessee LWIB identified several programs resulting from 

cross-collaboration activities. The LWIB reached out to technology centers at local 

colleges to develop medical information training programs. In addition, the LWIB was 

contacted by a number of state agencies such as the Tennessee Department of 

Community Economic Development to develop infrastructure work with industrial 

prospects. The Volunteer State Solar Initiative was detailed in the Tennessee modified 

state plan and implemented by local business, labor, and local and state governments. 

The Central Ohio LWIB participated with a state university on a neighborhood 

revitalization effort and provided funding and training of WIA participants on this project. 

The Ohio modified state plan specifically listed the Constructing Futures 

pre-apprenticeship project, which was created through collaboration between 

transportation, labor, and construction organizations. 

The Los Angeles City WIB (California), Cook County WIB (Illinois), and Atlanta WIB 

(Georgia) were not aware of projects with other agencies within their jurisdictions. 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

15 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Objective 3 — What has been the impact of these coordination efforts in terms of 

employing or re-employing workers through these projects? 

The data to analyze the impact of coordination is not available. 

Federal, state, and local level officials were not required; and therefore, did not track 

outcome measures such as employing workers specifically related to federal 

infrastructure investments. DOL requires states to track program outcome measures 

related to the WIA services it provides, but does not have a means other than anecdotal 

data to assess the impact of coordination efforts related to federal infrastructure 

investments. As a result, we could not determine the impact of any coordination efforts 

that did occur. The only information we are able to report on was the anecdotal 

information provided to us. 

Additionally, when an LWIB was involved in a particular program or project but was not 

the lead agency, the LWIB did not have outcome data on that project. LWIBs do not 

have outcome data on projects outside of the scope of normal reporting requirements. 

Although LWIBs received funding through the Recovery Act from DOL and other federal 

agencies, and are required to submit jobs created/retained data through the OMB 

required Section 1512 reporting, they correctly reported jobs created when the LWIB 

was the employing agency, per federal guidance. LWIB tracked participant job 

placement and job retention separately through an ETA reporting system, but the ETA 

performance reporting system does not track, and was not required to track, Recovery 

Act versus non-Recovery Act participant data. 

Grantees and contractors that did receive Recovery Act infrastructure investment funds 

are reporting jobs created or retained on the Section 1512 reporting. However, grantees 

and contractors were not required to, and do not, report whether these jobs include WIA 

participants. Therefore there is no way to determine how many, if any, were a result of 

collaboration with the workforce system or were for hires relating to WIA participants 

other than anecdotal information. 

Because of the lack of available reported data to analyze, we included in our sample 

one LWIB in each State in our sample of seven states. We obtained information on 

specific outcomes at two of the seven LWIBs as a result of coordination activities 

related to Recovery Act infrastructure investments as follows: 

The South Florida WorkForce Investment Board collaborated with the Miami 

Department of Transportation in the hiring efforts for the Port of Miami Tunnel 

Project. The South Florida WorkForce is working with Bouygues Civil Works 

Florida (BCWF), the general contractor in the hiring process for vendor services 

and individuals. This partnership has resulted in 23 hires for the Port of Miami 

tunnel project. 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

16 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

The Detroit WIB collaborated with the City’s Department of Human Services and 

local contractors to insulate walls and attics for more than 4,500 Detroit homes to 

be weatherized. The Detroit WIB worked with community colleges to offer free 

training in weatherization work without direct agreements. The LWIB used 

Recovery Act funds to train adult and dislocated workers in three educational 

groups in community colleges. Tangible outcomes resulted in 58 participants 

graduating and 38 participants placed in weatherization jobs. An additional six 

participants were placed in non-weatherization jobs. 

The City of Detroit WIB participated in the Road Construction Apprenticeship 

Readiness Program (RCAR) with the SWIB and the State DOT. This 3-year 

program placed minority/low income/female participants into construction jobs. 

The LWIB paid a stipend during the 9-week pre-apprenticeship program, which 

turned into an apprenticeship with the provider. In 2009, of the 30 participants, 

24 graduated, 9 were placed in road construction employment, and 6 were 

placed in non-road construction employment. Thirteen of the 24 graduates also 

went through an apprenticeship program. In 2010, of the 15 participants, 13 

graduated and 12 were placed in an apprenticeship. 

The remaining five LWIBs either did not participate in or were not able to provide us 

outcome information on collaboration efforts with federal infrastructure investment 

projects as this information was not tracked and maintained. 

Even though it was not required by federal or state regulations and significant 

challenges were present, some positive outcomes did occur at the local levels by 

pursuing these collaboration efforts. In some cases, dialogues with other agencies 

occurred that had not existed before. In the cases identified above, positive outcomes 

did occur as it related to job placement or retention. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training continue to 

strengthen cross-collaboration efforts across federal and state agencies and encourage 

states and local areas to continue to pursue collaboration as part of their regular 

practice. 

We appreciate the cooperation and courtesies that DOL personnel extended to 

WithumSmith+Brown during this audit. 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

17 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

18 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendices 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

19 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

20 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
Appendix A Background 

 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 Appendix A 

Background 

President Obama signed the Recovery Act (P.L. 111-5) into law on February 17, 2009. 

The Recovery Act provides the US DOL with funding to, among other things, increase 

employment and training opportunities. The stated purposes of the Recovery Act are to: 

•	 Preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery; 

•	 Assist those most impacted by the recession; 

•	 Provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring 

technological advance in science and health; 

•	 Invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure 

that will provide long term economic benefits; and stabilize state and local 

government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in 

essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases. 

The Recovery Act required agencies to implement an unprecedented level of 

transparency and accountability to ensure the public could see where and how their tax 

dollars were being spent and recipients of these funds deliver programmatic results. 

The Recovery Act did not define “infrastructure investments.” Consequently, 

interpretation of “infrastructure investments” under the Recovery Act may have varied 

across federal agencies. These agencies included, but were not limited to the 

Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation. Federal 

agencies distributed these funds to states and non-governmental organizations as both 

formula and discretionary grants. State agencies obligated the funds through grants, 

contracts, loans or other financial mechanisms. 

On March 18, 2009, the ETA issued TEGL 14-08 to states and local workforce areas on 

implementation of the WIA funding in the Recovery Act. ETA encouraged collaboration 

between the public workforce investment system and other agencies that received 

Recovery Act funds. DOL recognizes that other federal agencies are providing 

Recovery Act funds to states and local areas for activities that could potentially create 

jobs and/or training opportunities for unemployed workers. The TEGL contains multiple 

references to opportunities for collaboration. 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

21 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

22 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
Appendix B Objectives, Scope, Methodology, and Criteria 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 Appendix B 

Objectives, Scope, Methodology, and Criteria 

Objectives 

The objectives of our audit were to determine: 

1. What planning efforts have the Department of Labor, states, and local workforce 

investment agencies performed to coordinate workforce development activities 

with federal infrastructure investments elsewhere in the Recovery Act? 

2. What projects and other cross-collaboration activities have the states, and local 

workforce agencies undertaken in terms of spending Department of Labor 

Recovery Act funding for workforce development activities that support federal 

infrastructure investments elsewhere in the Recovery Act? 

3. What has been the impact of these coordination efforts in terms of employing or 

re-employing works through these projects? 

Scope 

Our performance audit covered the period from inception of the Recovery Act, 

February 17, 2009, through the end of fieldwork. We conducted our fieldwork at the 

ETA National Office in Washington, D.C.; at a pilot site visit in Trenton, N.J.; and 

through phone interviews and review of other corroborating data in seven selected 

states (California, Illinois, Michigan, Florida, Tennessee, Ohio, and Georgia) including a 

variety of State and local agencies, as well as the National Offices of the HUD, DOE, 

and Education. 

We conducted this performance audit 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 provided a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

23 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Methodology 

To accomplish our audit objectives, we obtained an understanding of the Recovery Act, 

which provides funding and outlines the requirements for the WIA programs. We also 

conducted interviews with ETA officials from the Office of Workforce Investment and 

reviewed implementation guidance, including TEGL 14-08 and other documentation. 

Furthermore, we reviewed ETA’s website and Recovery.gov for Recovery Act-related 

material. 

We judgmentally selected seven states to conduct structured interviews and reviewed 

other corroborating data at the state and local levels. In selecting the states, our 

objective was to achieve significant program coverage in terms of Recovery Act dollars 

to be expended, including infrastructure investment dollars, as well as adequate 

geographic coverage. Since the states and other entities selected for audit were 

judgmentally selected, the reported results can not be projected to all states and other 

entities. 

At the state level, we interviewed State Workforce Agency/State Workforce Investment 

Board directors and program staff, officials from the State Departments of 

Transportation, Energy, and Recovery Task Forces or similar entities. We also 

reviewed the modified state plans and compared the plans to the guidance in TEGL 

14-08 as it related to our audit objectives. At the local levels, we interviewed LWIB 

directors and program staff, reviewed modified local plans where available, and 

interviewed officials from Public Housing Authorities. 

A performance audit includes gaining an understanding of internal controls considered 

significant to the audit objectives, testing controls, and testing compliance with 

significant laws, regulations, and other requirements. For this assignment, we obtained 

an understanding of ETA’s process for coordinating collaboration with other agencies on 

Federal infrastructure investments. The testing of internal controls over this process 

was not determined to be significant to our audit objectives 

Criteria 

We used the following criteria to accomplish our audit: 

•	 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, dated 

February 17, 2009 (P.L.111-5) 

•	 Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended, dated August 7, 1998 

•	 WIA Regulations – 20 CFR 660 through 667, dated August 11, 2000 

•	 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memoranda: 

o M-09-10: Initial Implementing Guidance for the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009, dated February 18, 2009 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

24 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

o	 M-09-15: Updated Implementing Guidance for the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, dated April 3, 2009 

•	 Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 14-08, Allotments for 

Training and Employment Services as Specified in the ARRA for 

Activities Under the WIA, dated March 18, 2009 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

25 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

26 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
Appendix C Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

 Appendix C 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

BCWF Bouygues Civil Work Florida 

CWP Community Workforce Program 

DELEG Department of Energy, Labor, & Economic Growth 

DOL Department of Labor 

DOE Department of Energy 

ED Department of Education 

EDD Employment Development Department 

E-RIC Energy Regional Innovation Cluster 

ETA Employment and Training Administration 

HHS Health and Human Services 

HUD Housing and Urban Development 

LWIB Local Workforce Investment Board 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PHA Public Housing Authority 

RCAR Road Construction Apprenticeship Readiness 

SWIB State Workforce Investment Board 

TANF Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 

TEGL Training and Employment Guidance Letter 

WIA Workforce Investment Act 

WS+B WithumSmith+Brown 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

27 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

28 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
U.S. Department of Labor 

SEP 30 20n 

MEMORANDUM FOR: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

Assistanl Sacre1ary for 

Ernploymotnt and Training 

Washinglon. D.C. 20210 

ELLIOT P. LEWIS 

Assistant Inspector General 

Office of Audit 

JANEOATES ~ IhJ...-, 

Assistant SecretaryU 

Management's Response to the Office of the Inspector 

General's Audit of the Recovery Act: Implementation of 

Planning Efforts to Coord/nate Worlrforce Developmenl 

ActivWes With Federal Infrastructure im>estments, Audit 

Report 18-1 1-010-03-001 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the final report cited above. The 

Employment and Training Administration (ETA) appreciates the time and effort your 

staf'fspent to meet with my staff and to incorporate our comments into the report. 

ETA is very pleased with the workforce system's ability to quickly and successfully 

fulfill the legislative requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA). In addition to ensuring all of our legislative obligations were met, ETA 

encouraged activities and practices that would help optimize this valuable infusion of 

funds, including the coordination of workforce development resources with other federal 

infrastructure investments. The public workforce system assisted in the placement of 

over 6 millionjobseekers into available jobs throughout the country in both Program 

Year 2009 and Program Year 2010 - the heart of the Recovery Act period. 

The report accurately acknowledges that while coordination with Federallnftastructure 

Investments was not a legislative requirement, ETA proactively issued guidance and 

tedmica1 assistance around this subject. Within just 30 days from the passage of ARRA, 

ETA outlined substantive guidance in Training and Employment Guidance Letter 

(TEGL) 14-08. The Secretary of Labor then issued a letter directly to each Governor 

requesting the Governor's leadership in "connecting workers to Recovery Act jobs" by 

ensuring that all "new jobs generated through the Recovery Act are listed on your state 

job bank" and that they "oonnect together the range of activities funded by the Recovery 

Act." As a result, at least 24 states required ARRA-created jobs to be posted to the state 

job banks. 

In addition, ETA oonducted an on-site "readiness review" of all states and 153 local 

enlilies which included infonnation about each state's ability to coordinate with other 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Appendix D 

ETA’s Response to Draft Report 

Appendix 

D 

ETA’s Response to Draft Report 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

29 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
2 

agencies engaged in Recovery Act activity. The feedback received from the readiness 

reviews informed ETA's technical assistance agenda for ARRA which included the 

hosting of six Regional Recovery and Reemployment forums at which the coordination 

activities were encouraged (e.g., Job Creation in Energy). 

ETA provided further guidance through Webinars and other activities to encourage state 

and local workforce areas to link employment and training with new and emerging jobs. 

For example, ETA hosted the National Road to Recovery Summit which included 

sessions on how to develop and apply real-time labor market information (such as current 

job postings) to encourage optimal connection to job opportunities. Collectively, the 

guidance and technical assistance made an impact in the workforce system as evidenced, 

in part, by the fact that the seven states interviewed as part or this audit included 

collaboration plans and the majority of the states provided guidance or technical 

assistance to local areas. 

We offer the following response to the sole recommendation in your memorandwn. 

Recommendation: That the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training continue 

to strengthen cross-collaboration efforts across Federal and state agencies and encourage 

states and local areas to continue to pursue collaboration as part of their regular practice. 

ETA's Response: ETA agrees with the Office oflnspector General (DIG) 

recommendation that the agency should continue to strengthen cross-collaboration 

efforts. The agency has engaged in a variety of activities that show the agency continues 

to move in a dinx:tion consistent with the recommendation. Below are some noteworthy 

examples: 

1. Worliforce Investment Fund: Most recently, ETA has engaged in a consultation 

process with FederaJ partners to discuss the planning, development, and 

implementation of the Workforce Investment Fund (WIF) which is designed to 

test and evaluate best practices within the workforce system. This is one of the 

most important investments ETA will make in nx:ent years and severa] Federal 

partners have pledged their support. The solicitation, scheduled to be released in 

the fall of2011, will encourage system change and cross--agency alignment at the 

state and local levels to improve employment outcomes, better connect employers 

with the skills they need, and increase the cost-effective delivery of services. 

2. TANF-WIA Colloboration: A joint leuer (TEGL 24-09) was issued between the 

U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services to identify and explore areas of collaboration that support training and 

employment opportunities for low-income families, particularly opportunities to 

place eligible T ANF participants in subsidized employment. The guidance 

encourages cross-collaboration efforts, stating "it is our hope that this national 

partnership focused on subsidized employment will be modeled throughout state 

and local T ANF and workforce agencies." 

3. Career Pothways Initiative: The Department of LaborlET A, Department of 

Education/Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OV AE), and the 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

30 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
J 

Department of Health and Human Services/Administration on Children and 

Families (ACF) are engaged in a cross-agency partnership to promote best 

practices around career pathways at the state and local leveL The tenn "career 

pathway" means a clear sequence of education coursework andlor training 

credentials which lead up a career ladder. The Federal partnership has 

encouraged a diverse group of representatives from state and local agencies, 

private and non-profit partners, and employers and members of the business 

community collaborate to design, craft, and implement a shared vision. More 

than 13 states along with their local partners are participating. Our website 

includes infonnation on how the Federal partners are collaborating as well as the 

critical "how to" examples for stale and local areas to implement this vision. In 

the fall or20ll, this Federal partnership will take an additional step by issuing a 

Quick Start Action Planner for areas interested starting up career pathways 

programs. lnfonnation will be made available at the Career Pathways Initiative 

website https:/IIeamwork.workforce3Qne.org. 

4. Unified Planning: The Department of Labor lET A and its Federal partners 

(DOUVeterans Employment and Training Services. Department of 

EducationiOV AE and Rehabilitation Services Administration, the Department of 

Health and Human ScrviceslACF, Department of AgriculturelSupplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program, Housing and Urban Development/Community 

Development Block Grant Program are taking steps to enhance the Stale planning 

process across multiple programs and to improve the ability of States to submit a 

single, integrated or unified plan, which is an option available in Section 501 of 

the Workforce Investment Act. DOL and its Federal partners are in the process of 

identifying activities they can pursue together for FY 2012, including joint Stale 

consultations; issuing ajoint letter 10 State stakeholders on key COIU"lection 

opportunities; providing technical assistance; and identifying joint activities or 

pilot projects to improve integrated program planning and aligrunent in 2012. In 

FY 2013, DOL and its Federal partners intend to issue redesigned unified 

planning guidance that streamlines paperwork processes and eliminates multiple 

and overlapping planning requirements across programs. 

5. We are engaged in many other Joint Federal Initiatives, such as: 

o MOU with SSA to provide technical assistance to the One-Stop system 10 

better serve disabled jobseekers; and 

o Prisoner Reentry: ETA's Division of Youth Services and the U.S. Justice 

Department to strengthen communities and help ex-offenders successfully 

transition in those communities. 

ETA appreciates the opportunity to share follow-up activities that address the concerns of 

the audit. 

Please let us know if these on-going and planned actions results in closing this 

recommendation. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. If you have any 

questions, please contact Christine Ollis at (202) 693-3937. 

Prepared by WithumSmith+Brown PC 

For the U. S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General 

Federal Infrastructure Investments 

31 Report No. 18-11-010-03-001 
 

TO REPORT FRAUD, WASTE, OR ABUSE, PLEASE CONTACT: 

Online:

Email:

 http://www.oig.dol.gov/hotlineform.htm 

 hotline@oig.dol.gov 

Telephone: 1-800-347-3756 

202-693-6999 

Fax: 202-693-7020 

Address: Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Room S-5506 

Washington, D.C. 20210