Report to Congressional Requesters

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

June 2005 WORKFORCE 

INVESTMENT ACT 

Substantial Funds Are 

Used for Training, but 

Little Is Known 

Nationally about 

Training Outcomes 

GAO-05-650 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-650.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at 

(202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-650, a report to 

Congressional Requesters 

June 2005

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT

Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, 

but Little Is Known Nationally about 

Training Outcomes 

Local workforce boards used an estimated 40 percent of the WIA funds they 

had available in program year 2003 to obtain training services for WIA 

participants. Nationally, local boards had approximately $2.4 billion in WIA 

funds that were available to serve adults and dislocated workers during 

program year 2003 and used about $929 million for training activities (see 

fig.). The remaining funds paid for other program costs as well as 

administrative costs. We estimate that 416,000 WIA participants received 

training during the year. However, because some individuals may have 

received more than one type of training, this count may include some 

individuals more than once. Most of the participants received occupational 

classroom training purchased with ITAs, which are established on behalf of 

an eligible participant to finance training services. 

Most local workforce boards have developed policies to manage the use of 

ITAs, but many boards have encountered challenges in trying to implement 

their use. Local boards often require participants to complete specified tasks 

prior to entering training, such as gathering additional information on their 

desired occupation. In addition, they generally limit the amount of money 

participants can spend on training using ITAs and how long the training can 

last. Among the challenges encountered by local boards was the lack of good 

performance data on training providers making it difficult to determine 

which providers were most effective. Local boards in rural areas faced a 

different challenge—lack of nearby training providers. 

Little is known on a national level about the outcomes of those being 

trained. Certain aspects of Labor’s national participant database have been 

found to be incomplete and unverified. Additionally, data generally cannot 

be compared across states or local areas because of variations in data 

definitions. Labor is taking some steps to address these concerns, but the 

findings from this study reaffirm the need for a continued focus on resolving 

reported data quality issues. 

WIA Funds Available and Used for Training in Program Year 2003 

Note: Funds used for training include funds spent or obligated for training in program year 2003. 

The Congress passed the 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 

1998 seeking to create a system 

connecting employment, education, 

and training services to better 

match job seekers to labor market 

needs. However, questions have 

been raised about how WIA funds 

are being used and, in particular, 

how much is being spent on 

training. Contributing to the 

concern about the use of WIA 

funds is the lack of accurate 

information about the extent to 

which WIA participants are 

enrolled in training activities. GAO 

was asked to determine (1) the 

extent to which WIA funds are used 

for training, (2) how local 

workforce boards manage the use 

of Individual Training Accounts 

(ITA) and what challenges they 

have encountered, and (3) what is 

known at the national level about 

outcomes of those being trained. 

In its comments, the Department of 

Labor (Labor) noted that some of 

our estimates on training conflicts 

with their estimates. Labor’s 

estimate of the number of adults 

trained comes from their database 

and includes only those who had 

exited from the program. GAO’s 

estimates represent a more 

complete and accurate picture than 

Labor’s because they are based on 

information obtained directly from 

the local workforce areas, include 

all funds spent or obligated for 

training, and count all adults who 

received training in program year 

2003, not just those who exited the 

program. 
Page i GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 5 

Local Boards Used an Estimated 40 Percent of Available WIA 

Funds to Train Program Participants 11 

Local Boards Manage ITAs but Have Faced Challenges in 

Implementing Them 20 

Little Is Known about Outcomes of Those Being Trained because 

of Weaknesses in Data Collected 29 

Concluding Observations 32 

Agency Comments 33 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 36 

Appendix II Summary of Adult and Dislocated Worker Formula 

Funds for Program Year 2003 42 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Labor 44 

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 47 

Related GAO Products 48 

Tables 

Table 1: WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker Outcome Performance 

Measures 11 

Table 2: Estimated Total Number of Instances in Which WIA 

Participants Were Trained during Program Year 2003, by 

Category and Funding Source 17 

Table 3: Challenges Encountered by Local Boards 26 

Table 4: 95 Percent Confidence Intervals for Numeric Estimates 

with Margins of Error Exceeding 15 Percent of the Value 

of Those Estimates 39 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Table 5: Locations Selected for Site Visits 40 

Figures 

Figure 1: WIA Funding Streams for Youth, Adults, and Dislocated 

Workers 7 

Figure 2: Distribution of Local Workforce Investment Areas in 

Program Year 2003 8 

Figure 3: Estimated Total WIA Funds Available for Local Areas in 

Program Year 2003 13 

Figure 4: Estimated Total WIA Funds Used for Training in Program 

Year 2003 14 

Figure 5: Estimated Percentage of WIA Funds Used for Training, by 

Funding Source 15 

Figure 6: Estimated WIA-Funded Training in Program Year 2003, by 

Category 17 

Figure 7: Estimated Percentage of Local Boards Requiring 

Completion of Specified Activities for Adults and 

Dislocated Workers Seeking Training 21 

Figure 8: Estimated Percentage of Local Boards with Various 

Dollar Caps on ITAs 23 

Figure 9: Estimated Percentage of Local Boards Requiring 

Participants to Use ITA Funds for Costs Other than 

Tuition 24 
Page iii GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Abbreviations 

EMILE ETA Management Information and Longitudinal Evaluation 

ETA Employment and Training Administration 

ETPL eligible training provider list 

ITA Individual Training Account 

NAWB National Association of Workforce Boards 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

TAA Trade Adjustment Assistance 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

WIA Workforce Investment Act 

WIASRD Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data 

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

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. 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-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

June 29, 2005 

The Honorable Michael B. Enzi 

Chairman 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998, 

seeking to create a system connecting employment, education, and 

training services to better match job seekers to labor market needs. 

However, questions have been raised about how WIA funds are being used 

and, in particular, how much is being spent on training. Contributing to the 

concern about the use of WIA funds is the lack of accurate information 

about the extent to which WIA participants are enrolled in training 

activities. In program year 2003,1

 the Congress appropriated approximately 

$2.3 billion for the Department of Labor (Labor) to provide employment 

and training services to adults (those individuals aged 18 and older) and 

dislocated workers (in general, those individuals who have been laid off 

and are unlikely to return to their previous employment). Because not 

everyone needs or wants additional training, WIA authorizes local 

workforce boards to oversee a variety of services provided through onestop career centers to meet the needs of individual job seekers as well as 

the needs of the businesses in their area. Such services include providing 

information on job openings, comprehensive assessments, individual 

counseling, supportive services—such as transportation and child care—

and job training. Job training includes occupational skills training, which 

is typically purchased by WIA participants using Individual Training 

 1

A program year begins on July 1 of a year and ends on June 30 of the following year. A 

program year is designated by the year in which it begins. Thus, program year 2003 began 

on July 1, 2003, and ended on June 30, 2004. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Accounts (ITA). ITAs are established on behalf of an eligible participant to 

finance training services, and payments from these accounts can be made 

in a variety of ways, including the electronic transfer of funds or the use of 

vouchers. 

The primary vehicle for collecting and reporting information about the 

extent to which WIA participants are enrolled in training activities, 

including training funded through ITAs, is Labor’s national participant 

database, the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data 

(WIASRD). However, both we and Labor’s Office of Inspector General 

have raised concerns about the completeness and accuracy of data 

contained in WIASRD. Because of your interest in how WIA funds are 

being spent at the local level, you asked us to determine (1) the extent to 

which WIA funds are used for training, (2) how local workforce boards 

manage the use of ITAs and what challenges they have encountered, and 

(3) what is known at the national level about outcomes of those being 

trained. 

To determine the extent to which program year 2003 WIA funds were used 

for training,2

 how local workforce boards manage ITAs, and what 

challenges they have encountered in implementing ITAs, we conducted a 

Web-based survey of the 590 local workforce investment boards that were 

in existence in program year 2003 and located in the 50 states, District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico. We received responses from 428 (73 percent). 

We used the 428 responses to make estimates about the entire population 

of local workforce investment boards. 3

 We gathered information for four 

sources of WIA funds: adult formula funds, dislocated worker formula 

funds, national emergency grant funds, and state set-aside funds for 

statewide activities and rapid response activities. We collected 

information for program year 2003 (July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004) 

because it was the most recent year for which complete data were 

available. We included questions in the survey to assess the reliability of 

the financial and participant data. We also selected four states to visit—

California, Georgia, Iowa, and Maryland—that varied in funding size and 

 2

For purposes of this report, we are defining “used” to mean funds that are either spent or 

obligated. 

3

We chose to make these estimates based on an analysis of the differences between the 

responding boards and the nonresponding boards. All percentage estimates have margins 

of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points or less. All numerical estimates other than 

percentages have margins of error of plus or minus 15 percent or less of the value of those 

estimates, unless otherwise noted. 
Page 3 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

geographic location. Within each state, we visited two local workforce 

investment boards, selected to provide a mix of urban and rural areas. At 

each location visited, we obtained additional information on training 

policies implemented, challenges encountered, and reliability of data 

systems. To assess what is known on a national level about outcomes of 

those being trained, we obtained program year 2003 WIASRD data and 

performed tests to assess its completeness. We also reviewed our prior 

reports about the reliability of the WIASRD data and a report by Labor’s 

Office of the Inspector General on WIA performance outcomes. 

Appendix I contains a more detailed discussion of our scope and 

methodology. We performed our work between June 2004 and May 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Local boards used an estimated 40 percent of the WIA funds they had 

available in program year 2003 to obtain training services for WIA 

participants. Nationally, local boards had a combined total of 

approximately $2.4 billion in WIA funds that were available to serve adults 

and dislocated workers during program year 2003 and used about 

$929 million for training activities, primarily occupational classroom 

training. The remaining funds pay for other program costs, including job 

search assistance, case management, and supportive services, as well as 

administrative costs. We estimate that 416,000 participants received 

training during the year. However, because some individuals may have 

received more than one type of training, this count may include some 

individuals more than once. Of those trained in program year 2003, about 

323,000 participants received occupational classroom training. 

Approximately 85 percent of the occupational classroom training provided 

during that year was purchased through ITAs. At the eight sites we visited, 

participants used ITAs to prepare them for a wide variety of occupations, 

including nursing, information technology, and truck driving. Local boards 

also used the flexibility provided under WIA to offer a broad range of 

training-related activities, such as work experience, internships, and skills 

workshops, aimed at increasing employability but are not included in 

WIA’s definition of training and not paid for with training dollars. For 

example, about one-half of local boards used WIA funds to offer their 

customers computer lab workshops in software applications, basic 

keyboarding, and other computer skills, although this learning is not 

defined as training under WIA. 

Most local workforce boards have developed policies to manage the use of 

ITAs, but many boards have encountered challenges in trying to 

implement their use. An estimated 85 percent of the local workforce 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

boards limited the amount of money participants can spend on training 

using ITAs, and about two-thirds limited the length of time participants 

can be enrolled in training. For example, the majority of boards limited the 

amount participants can spend on training using ITAs to between $3,000 

and $7,000 and the length of time they can spend in training to 2 years. In 

addition, more than 80 percent of the local boards placed additional 

restrictions on adults and dislocated workers seeking to use ITAs by 

requiring them to complete specified skill assessments, and about 

70 percent of the local boards require adults and dislocated workers to 

gather additional information about the occupation for which they desire 

training. For example, one board required participants seeking ITAs to 

write an essay about why they wanted a particular training. Although the 

vast majority of local boards use ITAs, most have faced challenges in 

managing their use. For example, nearly two-thirds of the local boards 

encountered lack of performance data on providers as a challenge. Local 

boards we visited stated that not having performance information on 

training providers hindered their ability to determine which providers 

served participants most effectively. In addition, local boards located in 

rural areas may face other challenges because of the lack of nearby 

training providers. 

Little is known on a national level about the outcomes of those being 

trained because of weaknesses in the WIASRD database. Certain aspects 

of WIASRD have been found to be incomplete, unverified, and not 

comparable across local areas and states. Labor’s Office of the Inspector 

General has said there is little assurance that the states’ performance data 

for WIA programs are either accurate or complete because of inadequate 

oversight of data collection and management. Additionally, data generally 

cannot be compared across states or local areas because Labor allows 

local areas some flexibility to decide how to collect and report certain 

data on participant outcomes. For example, outcome data are entered in 

WIASRD once a participant has left the WIA program, but we found that 

local areas use different definitions to determine when a person has 

officially exited from the program. As a result, wage and employment 

outcomes being reported could vary greatly, making it difficult to compare 

outcome data across local areas. Labor is taking some steps to address 

these concerns, improve the data collected at the national level, and assess 

the impact of the program. For example, Labor has implemented a new 

project to validate the performance information collected and reported 

under WIA. This initiative requires states to examine the accuracy of both 

reports submitted to Labor and individual data elements. However, 

because this initiative is relatively new, it is too soon to tell if it will 

satisfactorily resolve all data quality problems. Labor is also in the initial 
Page 5 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

stages of developing a single, streamlined reporting and record-keeping 

system that would replace several databases, including WIASRD, and 

could address some data issues. However, it is unclear when this system 

will be implemented. Labor plans to conduct impact studies to assess the 

effectiveness of the WIA program, but Labor will not begin this process 

until after WIA reauthorization, thereby missing WIA’s requirement to 

conduct at least one study by 2005. 

In its comments, Labor noted that some of our information on training 

expenditures and training outcomes conflicts with its estimates. Labor 

also identified additional steps being taken to address data quality. 

Labor’s estimate of the number of adults enrolled in training includes only 

those adults reported in WIASRD who exited the program. We believe our 

estimates of the amount of funds used for training and the number of 

adults trained represent a more complete and accurate picture than 

Labor’s estimates because our estimates come directly from the local 

workforce areas, include all funds spent or obligated for training, and 

count all adults who received training in program year 2003, not just those 

who exited the program. 

WIA specifies a different funding source for each of the act’s main client 

groups—youth, adults, and dislocated workers.4

 Our report focuses on 

adults and dislocated workers. Once the Congress appropriates WIA 

funds, the amount of money that flows to states and local areas depends 

on a specific formula that takes into account unemployment for the adult 

and dislocated worker funding streams, the number of low-income 

individuals for the adult funding stream, and the number of long-term 

unemployed for the dislocated worker funding stream.5

 Labor allots 100 

percent of the adult funds and 80 percent of the dislocated worker funds 

 4

A dislocated worker is an individual who (1) has been terminated or laid off, or who has 

received a notice of termination or layoff, from employment; is eligible for, or has 

exhausted entitlement to, unemployment insurance or is not eligible but has been 

employed for a sufficient duration to demonstrate attachment to the workforce; and is 

unlikely to return to previous industry or occupation; (2) has been terminated or laid off, or 

has received a notice of termination or layoff, from employment as a result of any 

permanent plant closure of, or substantial layoff at, a plant, facility, or enterprise; (3) was 

self employed but is unemployed as a result of general economic conditions in the 

community in which the individual resides or because of natural disasters; or (4) is a 

displaced homemaker. 

5

See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for Youth, 

Adults, and Dislocated Workers, GAO-03-636 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2003). 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

to states. The Secretary of Labor retains 20 percent of the dislocated 

worker funds in a national reserve account to be used for National 

Emergency Grants,6

 demonstrations, and technical assistance and allots 

the remaining funds to each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico. In program year 2003, Labor allotted approximately $2 billion 

to states for adults and dislocated workers (see app. II for a listing of 

program year 2003 allotments by state). Upon receiving its allotments, 

each state can set aside no more than 15 percent to support statewide 

activities. These may include a variety of activities that benefit adults, 

youths, and dislocated workers statewide, such as providing assistance in 

the establishment and operation of one-stop centers, developing or 

operating state or local management information systems, and 

disseminating lists of organizations that can provide training. In addition, 

each state can set aside no more than 25 percent of its dislocated worker 

funds to provide rapid response services to workers affected by layoffs 

and plant closings. The funds set aside by the states to provide rapid 

response services are intended to help dislocated workers transition 

quickly to new employment. After states set aside funds for rapid response 

and for other statewide activities, they allocate the remainder of the 

funds—at least 60 percent—to their local workforce areas7

 (see fig. 1). 

 6

For additional information on National Emergency Grants, see GAO, National Emergency 

Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve Award Process, but Further Actions Are 

Required to Expedite Grant Awards and Improve Data, GAO-04-496 (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 16, 2004). 

7

Under WIA, the chief elected official in a local area or his or her designee serves as the 

local recipient of WIA funds. The local recipient must disburse the funds at the direction of 

the local board. 
Page 7 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Figure 1: WIA Funding Streams for Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers 

Approximately 600 local workforce areas exist throughout the nation (see 

fig. 2). Each local area has a local workforce board that administers WIA 

activities within the local area, including selecting one-stop center 

operators, identifying eligible training providers, developing links with 

employers, and overseeing the use of funds for employment and training 

activities. 

State rapid response

25%

Statewide activities 

15%

National emergency

grants, demonstrations

and technical

assistance

100%

distributed

to states by 

formula 80%

distributed

to states by 

formula

20%

secretary’s 

reserve

Sub-state funds

60%

distributed to

local areas by

 formula

Statewide

activities

15%

Sub-state funds

85%

distributed to 

local areas by 

formula

Statewide

activities

15%

Sub-state funds

85%

distributed to 

local areas by 

formula

Youth Adults Dislocated workers

Separate funding streams for programs serving youth, 

adults, and dislocated workers

Source: Employment and Training Administration, and P. L. 105-220.
Page 8 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Figure 2: Distribution of Local Workforce Investment Areas in Program Year 2003 
Page 9 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

WIA was intended to meet both the needs of businesses for skilled 

workers and the training, education, and employment needs of individuals. 

The act allows training and employment programs to be designed and 

managed at the local level to meet the unique needs of local businesses 

and individuals. Another aspect of the act was to provide customers with 

easy access to the information and services they needed and empower 

those who need training to obtain the training they find most appropriate. 

One cornerstone of WIA was the one-stop concept where information 

about and access to a wide array of services would be available at a single 

location. At the one-stop center, customers can get information about job 

openings; receive job search and placement assistance; receive an 

assessment of their skill levels, aptitudes, and abilities; and obtain 

information on a full array of employment-related services, including 

information on local education and training providers. Through the onestop centers, employers also have a single point of contact to provide 

information about current and future skills needed by their workers and to 

list job openings. 

The services typically available at one-stop centers fall into the following 

categories: 

• Core services. These include job search and placement assistance, the 

provision of labor market information, and preliminary assessment of 

skills and needs. Core services are available to all adults who come to a 

one-stop center, with no eligibility requirements imposed. 

• Intensive services. These include comprehensive assessments, case 

management, short-term prevocational services,8

 work experience, and 

internships. Intensive services are available to qualified adults and 

dislocated workers who are unable to obtain or retain a job that leads 

to self-sufficiency. 

• Training services. These include occupational skills training, on-thejob training, customized training,9

 and skill upgrading and retraining. 

Training services are available to qualified adults and dislocated 

 8

Short-term prevocational services prepare individuals for employment or training and 

include development of learning skills, communication skills, interviewing skills, 

punctuality, personal maintenance, and professional conduct. 

9

Customized training is designed to meet the special requirements of an employer and is 

conducted with a commitment by the employer to hire the individual upon successful 

completion of the training, for which the employer pays no less than 50 percent of the cost. 
Page 10 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

workers who are unable to obtain or retain employment after receiving 

at least one intensive service.10

• Supportive services. These include services—such as transportation, 

child care, and housing—that are necessary to enable WIA participants 

to take part in WIA activities. 

WIA requires the use of ITAs, which allow qualified individuals to 

purchase the training they determine best for themselves. Adults and 

dislocated workers use ITAs to purchase training services from eligible 

providers they select in consultation with case managers. Payments from 

ITAs may be made in a variety of ways, including the electronic transfer of 

funds through financial institutions, vouchers, or other appropriate 

methods. Payments may also be made incrementally. WIA requires that 

ITAs can only be used to purchase training from programs listed on an 

eligible training provider list (ETPL). Local boards, in partnership with the 

state, compile this list by identifying training providers and programs 

whose performance qualifies them to receive WIA funds to train adults and 

dislocated workers. Good information allows participants to make 

informed training choices. In this regard, WIA requires that local boards 

ensure that participants have access to performance information on 

training providers, including the percentage of individuals completing their 

training program, the percentage of individuals in the program who 

obtained jobs, and the wages earned by these individuals. 

Under certain situations, however, local boards have the option of 

purchasing training without using ITAs. The three exceptions to using 

ITAs are 

• if the activity is on-the-job training or customized training, 

• if a local board determines an insufficient number of eligible providers 

exist in the area (such as in a rural area), or 

• if a training provider has a demonstrated effectiveness in serving a 

special population that face multiple barriers to employment. 

 10The determination of whether training services may be made available to adults or 

dislocated workers under WIA is generally made by WIA adult or dislocated worker staff. 
Page 11 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

To assess whether it is accomplishing its goals, WIA established a 

performance measurement system for the programs directly funded by 

WIA—one that emphasized results in areas of job placement, retention, 

earnings, and skill attainment11 (see table 1). WIA requires states to use 

Unemployment Insurance wage records to track employment-related 

outcomes. States submit this information to Labor in annual reports 

submitted each December. States also submit quarterly performance 

reports, which are due 45 days after the end of each quarter. In addition to 

the performance reports, states submit their updates for WIASRD every 

January. WIA also requires Labor to conduct at least one multisite study to 

determine program results by the end of fiscal year 2005. 

Table 1: WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker Outcome Performance Measures 

Adult Dislocated worker 

1. Entered employment rate 1. Entered employment rate 

2. Employment retention rate at 6 months 2. Employment retention rate at 6 months 

3. Average earnings change in 6 months 3. Earnings replacement rate in 6 months 

4. Entered employment and credential rate 4. Entered employment and credential rate 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Training and Employment Guidance Letter, No. 7-

99 (Mar. 3, 2001). 

Local boards used an estimated 40 percent of the WIA funds they had 

available in program year 2003 to obtain training services for WIA 

participants. Nationally, local boards had approximately $2.4 billion in 

WIA funds that were available to serve adult participants during program 

year 2003 and used about $929 million for training activities, primarily 

occupational classroom training. The remaining funds pay for other 

program costs, including job search assistance, case management, and 

supportive services, as well as administrative costs. We estimate that 

416,000 WIA participants received training during the year. However, 

because some individuals may have received more than one type of 

training, this count may include some individuals more than once. Of those 

trained in program year 2003, about 323,000 participants received 

occupational classroom training, of which about 85 percent was 

purchased through ITAs. Local boards also used the flexibility provided 

 11Several prior reports have cited disincentives in the performance measures to serve 

certain workers using WIA funds. See related GAO products at the back of this report. 

Local Boards Used an 

Estimated 40 Percent 

of Available WIA 

Funds to Train 

Program Participants 
Page 12 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

under WIA to offer a broad range of training-related activities aimed at 

increasing employability but not included in WIA’s definition of training. 

Local boards nationwide used an estimated 40 percent of their WIA funds 

for training in program year 2003. During that year, local boards had about 

$2.4 billion in WIA funds available to serve adults and dislocated workers. 

Almost all local boards had funds from the WIA adult and dislocated 

worker funding streams; in addition, many boards had National 

Emergency Grants or funds from two state set-asides, the 15 percent setaside for statewide activities and the 25 percent set-aside for rapid 

response. WIA permits local boards up to 2 years to spend each program’s 

funding. Accordingly, to get a national picture of available WIA funds at 

the local level, we defined available funds as the combined amount of 

program year 2003 funds and funds carried over from program year 2002. 

Of the approximate $2.4 billion in combined WIA funds that local boards 

had available, about $1.8 billion (75 percent) came from the program year 

2003 allocation, while the rest consisted of funds carried over from 2002 

(see fig. 3). Allocations from the WIA adult and WIA dislocated worker 

funding streams together constituted about 80 percent of the funds local 

boards could use. 

An Estimated 40 Percent 

of Available WIA Funds 

Were Used for Training 
Page 13 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Figure 3: Estimated Total WIA Funds Available for Local Areas in Program Year 

2003 

Note: All estimates less than or equal to $87 million in figure 3 have margins of error exceeding plus 

or minus 15 percent of the value of those estimates. See appendix I for the 95 percent confidence 

intervals associated with these estimates. 

Of the $2.4 billion available, local boards used approximately $929 million 

in program year 2003 to fund training activities, representing about 40 

percent of the WIA funds that were available to serve adult participants in 

the program. The remaining funds pay for other program costs, including 

job search assistance, case management, and supportive services, as well 

as administrative costs. We found that local boards spent an estimated 

$724 million on training and obligated another $205 million.12 Obligations 

 12WIA regulations require expenditures to be reported on an accrual basis. This means 

states should report all cash outlays and all accruals as expenditures on their reports. 

Accruals are amounts owed for goods and services that have been received but for which 

cash has not yet been disbursed. 

0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2,250

2,500

Dollars in millions

Source: GAO analysis.

782

207

681

208

124

80

208

87

1,795

582

WIA adult

WIA dislocated

worker

National

Emergency Grants

State set-asides

Total

Carryover funds

Program year 2003 funds
Page 14 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

are funds local boards commit to pay for training, but for which services 

have not yet been provided and costs not yet incurred (see fig. 4). 

Figure 4: Estimated Total WIA Funds Used for Training in Program Year 2003 

Note: All estimates less than or equal to $83 million in figure 4 have margins of error exceeding plus 

or minus 15 percent of the value of those estimates. See appendix I for the 95 percent confidence 

intervals associated with these estimates. 

Local boards used a slightly higher percentage of their WIA adult funds (43 

percent) for training than their dislocated worker and state set-aside 

funds, both of which had 37 percent used for training (see fig. 5). 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Dollars in millions

Source: GAO analysis.

328

91

249

83

63

14

84

17

724

205

WIA adult

WIA dislocated

worker

National

Emergency Grants

State set-asides

Total WIA funds used

Obligated funds

Expended funds
Page 15 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Figure 5: Estimated Percentage of WIA Funds Used for Training, by Funding Source 

Of the WIA dollars local boards spent on training, an estimated 79 percent 

was for occupational classroom training. Boards used the remainder of the 

funds to pay for on-the-job training, customized training, and other types 

of training, including adult basic education and skill upgrading. 

In addition to using WIA funding, many local boards also leveraged other 

sources of funding to help pay the costs of training for WIA participants.13

Some of these funding sources were federal programs, including Trade 

 13WIA funding for training is limited to participants who are unable to obtain grant 

assistance from other sources to pay the costs of their training, or who require assistance 

beyond that available under grant assistance from other sources. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Percent

Source: GAO analysis.

43

37

39

37

40

WIA adult

WIA dislocated

worker

National

Emergency Grants

State set-asides

Total
Page 16 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Adjustment Assistance (TAA),14 the H-1B skill grant program,15 and 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). For example, in 

program year 2003, one board we visited in Maryland enrolled 49 WIA 

participants in training funded by TAA. Other sources of funding came 

from state and local governments or private entities. For example, at one 

site we visited in Georgia, the local public school system paid for high 

school equivalency classes for WIA participants, including teacher salaries, 

testing, and books and materials. In addition, the local housing authority 

provided training on a variety of soft skills for 600 of its clients at the onestop center.16

Overall, we estimate that 416,000 WIA participants were enrolled in 

training during program year 2003 and that about 323,000 participants 

received occupational classroom training.17 In our survey, local boards 

reported the number of people enrolled in each category of training rather 

than the total receiving training. As a result, it is possible that the 416,000 

includes some duplication of individuals who received more than one kind 

of training during that year (see table 2). 

 14To participate in the TAA program, laid-off workers must be certified as eligible by the 

Department of Labor. For more information, GAO, Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms 

Have Accelerated Training Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges Remain, 

GAO-04-1012 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2004). 

15For more information on the H-1B skill grant program, see GAO, High Skill Training: 

Grants from H-1B Visa Fees Meet Specific Workforce Needs, but at Varying Skill Levels, 

GAO-02-881 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2002). 

16Soft skills are the nontechnical skills, abilities, and traits that workers need to function in 

a job. These include four sets of workplace competencies: problem-solving and other 

cognitive skills, oral communication skills, personal qualities and work ethic, and 

interpersonal and teamwork skills. 

17These figures include any participant who received training in program year 2003, 

regardless of when they were enrolled in, or exited from, the program. 

WIA Participants Were 

Most Likely to Receive 

Occupational Classroom 

Training 
Page 17 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Table 2: Estimated Total Number of Instances in Which WIA Participants Were Trained during Program Year 2003, by 

Category and Funding Source 

 WIA adult 

WIA dislocated

worker

National 

Emergency 

Grants 

State

set-asides Total 

Occupational classroom training 135,901 123,139 32,558 31,204 322,802

On-the-job training 14,671 7,863 656 2,217 25,407

Customized training 13,424 2,193 174 10,883 26,674

Other training 20,771 11,526 2,193 6,144 40,634

Total 184,767 144,721 35,581 50,448 415,517

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: All customized training estimates, all other training estimates, and some on-the-job training 

estimates in table 2 have margins of error exceeding plus or minus 15 percent of the value of those 

estimates. See appendix I for the 95 confidence intervals associated with those estimates. 

We estimate that more than three-quarters of the training that participants 

received (78 percent) was occupational classroom training (see fig. 6). Onthe-job training and customized training each accounted for an additional 

6 percent of the total training that occurred in program year 2003, while 10 

percent of training included other activities, such as adult education, 

literacy classes, entrepreneurial training, and skill upgrading. 

Figure 6: Estimated WIA-Funded Training in Program Year 2003, by Category 

Approximately 85 percent of the occupational classroom training provided 

during program year 2003 was purchased by participants through ITAs. At 

6%

6%

10%

78%

Participants in customized training

Participants in on-the-job training

Participants in other training

Participants in occupational classroom training

Source: GAO analysis.
Page 18 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

some local boards, however, specific kinds of occupational classroom 

training were obtained without the use of ITAs. For example, one local 

board we visited in Iowa used WIA funds to pay for classes in typing skills 

at the local community college, but ITAs were not used to pay for this 

training because it was short-term training that did not result in a 

credential. 

At the eight sites we visited, participants used ITAs to pay for training in a 

wide variety of occupations. WIA regulations require that participants 

select a training program directly linked to employment opportunities. 

Each of these local boards told us that nursing and other health care 

professions were in high demand locally, and accordingly, participants in 

all eight areas sought training in health care occupations. Other highdemand occupations at some of the local boards we visited included 

information technology, truck driving, manufacturing, and teaching. As 

local labor markets have changed, some boards have developed specially 

tailored programs designed to mirror shifts in labor demand. For example, 

one local area in California faced massive layoffs in the high-tech industry 

but had a dearth of qualified teachers in the local schools. As a result, the 

local board created a program to train dislocated high-tech workers to 

become teachers. 

In addition to providing training activities, local boards used the flexibility 

provided under WIA to offer a broad range of intensive services, some of 

which are aimed at increasing job skills. These training-related activities, 

including work experience, internships, and computer skills training, are 

not captured in WIA’s definition of training and, therefore, not paid for 

with training dollars. Accordingly, neither the amount of funding spent on 

these activities nor the number of participants who benefit from them are 

identified in our statistics on training. Nevertheless, these activities can 

play a significant role in preparing WIA participants for successful 

employment. 

Although many WIA participants do not need extensive training to obtain a 

job, some still need help improving a variety of skills that will further their 

chances of successfully searching for and retaining a job. Much like 

training, these activities are intended to increase employability. Many are 

short-term activities, such as computer lab training and other intensive 

skills workshops. For example, approximately one-half of local boards use 

WIA funds to offer participants computer lab training in software 

applications, basic keyboarding, and other computer skills. One board we 

visited in Georgia offers another type of short-term, intensive skills 

Local Boards Fund 

Training-Related Activities 

and Services 
Page 19 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

workshop through its Basic Industrial Maintenance program. During this 

4-week training course, participants learn a variety of skills including the 

basics of construction, plumbing, and carpentry. Other training-related 

activities that are intended to increase skills but are not included in WIA 

training are internships and work experience opportunities. For example, 

one local board we visited in Iowa spent about $79,000 in program year 

2003 to provide internships and work experience opportunities to 41 WIA 

participants. 

Moreover, some boards we visited used WIA funds to pay for supportive 

services, such as child care and transportation, that enable participants to 

attend training. Like funding spent on training-related activities, the cost of 

these supportive services is not reflected in the amount of WIA funding 

that local boards spend on training. However, these services can represent 

a large investment of WIA dollars. Local boards have flexibility in whether 

and how they use WIA funds for services that support training.18 For 

example, one local board we visited in rural Iowa spent over $160,000 in 

program year 2003 on a wide array of supportive services for people in 

training, including child care, transportation, eye exams, and glasses. 

Because the area contains several correctional facilities, the board also 

used a portion of these WIA funds to purchase bicycles for ex-offenders 

who were attempting to reenter the workforce but had lost their driving 

privileges. Another local area we visited in California spent $87,000 in 

supportive services during program year 2003; in addition to paying for 

child care and transportation, these WIA funds paid for items including 

books, uniforms, and tools, as well as services such as fingerprinting and 

tuberculosis testing, which some training programs require. Not all boards 

provided WIA-funded supportive services to people in training, however. 

One local area we visited in Maryland did not use WIA funding to provide 

supportive services to its adult participants, although it referred those in 

need to other agencies for assistance. 

 18Under WIA, supportive services may only be provided to individuals who are participating 

in core, intensive, or training services and who are unable to obtain these services through 

other programs. 
Page 20 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Most local workforce boards have developed policies to manage the use of 

ITAs, but many boards have encountered challenges in trying to 

implement their use. Local boards often require participants to complete 

various skill assessments prior to entering training and gather additional 

information on the occupation for which they desire training. In addition, 

they generally limit the amount of money participants can spend on 

training using ITAs and how long participants can spend in training. 

Although the vast majority of local boards use ITAs, most also said they 

have faced challenges in managing their use. The challenge most 

frequently identified was lack of good performance data on training 

providers. Local boards in rural areas face a different challenge—lack of 

nearby training providers. Some boards have identified initiatives to 

mitigate the challenges they face. 

We estimate that most local boards established procedures to ensure that 

any training purchased using ITAs is warranted and placed spending limits 

on individual ITAs to control costs. WIA regulations require that 

participants must receive at least one intensive service, such as individual 

counseling and career planning, before enrolling in training. Many local 

boards also require participants in the adult and dislocated worker 

programs who want training to first complete specified activities to 

demonstrate their need for training. For example, local boards may require 

participants to complete skill assessments or attend specific workshops. 

Local Boards Manage 

ITAs but Have Faced 

Challenges in 

Implementing Them 

Most Local Boards Have 

Policies to Manage ITAs 
Page 21 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

In addition, they may require participants to gather information on the 

occupation for which they want training or document their inability to find 

employment (see fig. 7). 

Figure 7: Estimated Percentage of Local Boards Requiring Completion of Specified 

Activities for Adults and Dislocated Workers Seeking Training 

More than 80 percent of the local boards require adults and dislocated 

workers to complete specified skill assessments or tests before being 

allowed to purchase training with ITAs. For example, three local boards in 

Georgia, Kansas, and Mississippi commented that participants are required 

to complete career assessments or occupational interest inventories prior 

to training. A local board in New York mentioned that staff are required to 

interview participants and determine whether they are in need of training 

and have the skills and qualifications to successfully participate in the 

training program. A local board we visited in Georgia required participants 

to demonstrate an aptitude and interest in an area before enrolling in 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Adult

Dislocated worker

86

83

34 33

70 69

47

50

Source: GAO analysis.

Activity

Undergo skill 

assessments

workshops

Complete 

Information

Gather additional

inability

Document 

to find job
Page 22 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

training. Depending on how proactive the participant is, the process can 

take up to 6 months before the participant is enrolled in a training 

program. 

Approximately 70 percent of the local boards require adults and dislocated 

workers to gather additional information about the occupation for which 

they want training. For example, a local board in Arizona noted that 

participants must interview three people working in their desired field; 

another board, in Washington, commented that participants are required 

to conduct informational interviews with employers in the occupation they 

wish to pursue. Similarly, three of the local boards that we visited required 

participants to perform specific tasks prior to entering training. For 

example, one local board we visited in Georgia required participants to 

gather specific information on training providers and then compose an 

essay explaining why they chose a particular course and provider. Another 

board we visited, in California, asks participants to research and disclose 

information on the training they want to pursue, including the 

occupation’s starting wage, whether this wage is sufficient to support 

them and their family, working conditions, available job openings, and 

education and skill requirements. Also, a local board we visited in 

Maryland requires participants seeking certain types of training, such as 

on the operation of a tractor-trailer, to obtain prehire letters that 

guarantee employment once training is completed. 

About one-third of local boards required adults and dislocated workers to 

complete workshops prior to enrolling in training. For example, a West 

Virginia board noted that participants must demonstrate their soft skills or 

complete a soft skills program before entering occupational training. One 

of the local boards we visited in California requires that participants 

attend an orientation and a soft skills workshop prior to entering training. 

They also offer additional voluntary workshops, including those in which 

participants explore different vocations, complete applications, practice 

interviews, and perform self-assessments. Similarly, a local board we 

visited in Georgia requires participants to take a general orientation and 

résumé writing workshop before being eligible for ITAs. 

Approximately 85 percent of local workforce boards limit the amount of 

money participants can spend on training using ITAs. An estimated 31 

percent of the local boards limited ITAs to between $3,000 and $5,000 (see 

fig. 8). At local boards limiting ITAs, the amount of the caps ranged from 

$350 at one local board to $15,000 at three local boards. One of the local 

boards we visited in Maryland said that its ITA cap had changed four times 

since program year 2000. The cap started at $4,000, was then increased to 
Page 23 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

$4500 because of inflation, and later rose to $5,500 because of the 

increased demand for, and cost of, information technology training. 

However, because of reduced WIA funding, the board later lowered the 

cap to $3,000. 

Figure 8: Estimated Percentage of Local Boards with Various Dollar Caps on ITAs 

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Rather than having a single dollar limit on ITAs, two local boards reported 

having ITA caps that could vary by training program. Specifically, a local 

board in Hawaii limits an ITA for any particular training program to the 

cost of the least expensive provider among those who offer equivalent 

programs, while a local board we visited in Iowa limits an ITA for a 

particular training program to the highest cost of obtaining that training at 

a state public institution. 

Most of the boards that impose dollar caps on ITAs expect the amount of 

the ITA to also cover the costs of books, tools, and uniforms. A number of 

local boards also expect the amount of the ITA to cover the costs for 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Percentage of boards with ITA cap

Source: GAO analysis.

Amount of dollar cap on ITAs

8

31

27

12

15

8

$3,000-$4,999

$5,000-$6,999

$7,000-$8,999

$9,000 or more

No ITA cap

Less than

$3,000
Page 24 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

supportive services and other items, such as fees for licenses, 

certifications, tests, and physical exams (see fig. 9). 

Figure 9: Estimated Percentage of Local Boards Requiring Participants to Use ITA 

Funds for Costs Other than Tuition 

Note: Other includes fees for licenses, certifications, tests, and physical exams. 

In addition to limiting the amount of money participants can spend on 

training, an estimated two-thirds of the local boards also limit how long 

participants can spend in training. The most frequent limit on training was 

2 years. Many of these local boards, however, indicated that time limits 

could be waived depending on an individual’s circumstances. One of the 

local boards we visited in Iowa had no time limit for training using ITAs, 

but encouraged shorter-term training lasting one or two semesters, 

especially for dislocated workers, because of the limited period for 

collecting unemployment insurance. 

The use of particular training providers varied among the local boards we 

visited. For example, in program year 2003, one local board we visited in 

California used 48 private schools as training providers for 305 

participants and 3 community colleges for 42 participants. This local board 

also used 15 4-year colleges for 202 participants. The majority of these 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Percent

Source: GAO analysis.

86

65

58

18

22

Uniforms

Other

services

Supportive 

Books/

supplies

equipment

Tools/

Type of cost
Page 25 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

participants were former high-tech workers being trained to become 

teachers. A local board we visited in Georgia relied heavily on private, 

proprietary schools, using them for about 1,000 participants each year. The 

board believes these schools are more flexible than other training 

providers and offer a wide array of training courses. On the other hand, a 

local board we visited in Iowa used community colleges for 90 percent of 

the 246 ITAs issued in program year 2003.19 Local boards responding to our 

survey reported that 37 percent of the ITAs issued in program year 2003 

were used at proprietary schools and 35 percent were used at community 

colleges. The remainder were used at various providers, including 4-year 

colleges, public vocational and technical schools, and community basedorganizations. 

In December 2004, Mathematica Policy Research issued an interim report 

concluding that the way ITAs are administered influences the likelihood of 

participants requesting counseling or receiving ITAs.20 The study also 

found that different approaches to administering ITAs appeared to have a 

limited effect on participants’ training choices. Labor funded the 3-year 

study to assess how different approaches to administering ITAs affect 

training choices, employment and earnings outcomes, returns on 

investment, and customer satisfaction. Eight sites were included in the 

study. These sites were located in or around Atlanta, Georgia; Bridgeport, 

Connecticut; Charlotte, North Carolina; North Cook County, Illinois; 

Jacksonville, Florida; and Phoenix, Arizona.21 Mathematica’s study results 

are not generalizable beyond these eight sites. A later report by 

Mathematica will present an analysis of how the ITA approaches affect 

additional outcomes, including training completion, customer satisfaction, 

and employment and earnings after training, as well as an analysis of the 

return on the investment in training. 

 19For more information about workforce development programs offered by community 

colleges and technical schools, see GAO, Public Community Colleges and Technical 

Schools: Most Schools Use Both Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce 

Development, GAO-05-04 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 18, 2004). 

20See Mathematica Policy Research, The Effects of Customer Choice: First Findings from 

the Individual Training Account Experiments, Final Interim Report (Washington, D.C.: 

December 2004).

21In Atlanta and Phoenix, the study was implemented by a consortium of two local 

workforce investment areas. 
Page 26 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Most local boards faced some challenges in their efforts to implement 

ITAs, and local boards in rural areas face a unique challenge. The majority 

of local boards encountered as challenges the lack of performance data on 

training providers, the timing of training being offered, being able to get 

new training providers on the eligible training provider list (ETPL), and 

the ability to link the ITAs with economic development strategies (see 

table 3). A few local boards have found ways to mitigate some of these 

challenges. 

Table 3: Challenges Encountered by Local Boards 

Challenge 

Estimated percentage

of local boards

encountering challengea

Lack of quality data on provider performance 65

Timing of training 60

Getting new providers on ETPL 54

Linking ITA system with local economic and business 

strategies 

52

Lack of providers on ETPL offering training in high 

demand occupations 

44

Communication with training providers to monitor 

participant progress 

42

Clients choosing training in low demand or low wage 

occupations 

42

Management and tracking of obligations and expenditures 

for training 

32

Lack of qualified providers 32

Lack of local control over participant’s selection of training 

provider 

27

Federal monitoring and reporting of local and state 

spending 

27

Getting providers off the ETPL 24

Formulating ITA policies at the local level 22

Not enough guidance from Labor on implementing ITAs 21

Source: GAO analysis. 

a

We classified challenges as circumstances that local boards reported encountering to a moderate, 

great, or very great extent. 

Nearly two-thirds of the local workforce boards encountered the lack of 

performance data on training providers as a challenge. For example, a 

local board in Wisconsin commented that the lack of consistent data on 

training providers reduces the value of the ETPL to local boards. A local 

Local Boards Face 

Challenges in 

Implementing ITAs 
Page 27 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

board in Missouri noted that one of the greatest challenges lies in not 

having reliable information regarding the quality and relevance of the 

training being offered by training providers. The board further stated that 

the state’s report card containing performance information on training 

providers in Missouri was incomplete or unavailable. Local boards we 

visited in California and Iowa said that a statewide report card on training 

provider performance did not exist. In lieu of a statewide report card, the 

California boards tracked training provider performance themselves, while 

the Iowa boards relied upon informal feedback about provider 

performance. 

Approximately 60 percent of the local boards encountered the timing of 

the training offered by providers as a challenge. For example, two local 

boards we visited in Georgia and Iowa said that some participants are 

unable to attend training programs that are offered only during a regular 

academic schedule. The Iowa board explained that some participants who 

have to wait too long for a training program to begin may have their 

unemployment insurance benefits run out before the training can be 

completed. On the other hand, some local boards have found solutions to 

deal with this issue. For example, a local board in Washington commented 

that it purchased classroom group training to offer more flexibility as to 

when training will be offered and to satisfy the demand for particular 

training. Similarly, a local board in Massachusetts noted it persuaded local 

technical high schools to offer programs at night, thereby resulting in 

greater availability of training in trade-related fields that are in high labor 

demand. A local board we visited in Maryland developed close 

relationships with area community colleges that now schedule 

occupational training outside the regular academic calendar. 

More than half the boards faced getting new providers on the ETPL as a 

challenge. This has been a long-standing concern. We reported in 2001 that 

according to training providers, the data collection burden resulting from 

participation in WIA can be significant and may discourage willingness to 

participate under WIA as training providers.22 Labor has heard these 

concerns from training providers and has approved waivers for 30 states. 

These waivers, in effect, give states additional time to address data 

collection challenges. However, getting training providers, particularly 

community colleges, to participate in the ETPL remains a concern for 

 22See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns over 

New Requirements, GAO-02-72 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2001). 
Page 28 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

some local boards. For example, local boards in California, Indiana, 

Massachusetts, and Michigan noted that some providers, community 

colleges in particular, are reluctant to participate in the ETPL. A local 

board that we visited in California elaborated on this point, stating that 

community colleges in its area are operating at full capacity and do not 

need WIA dollars or participants and, therefore, are not interested in 

getting on the ETPL. Some local boards are finding ways to encourage 

providers to participate. For example, one local board in Massachusetts 

has been working collaboratively with other boards throughout the state 

to meet with key figures in the community college system to provide 

information, consultation, and feedback. Two local boards we visited in 

Iowa and Maryland have developed strong relationships with the 16 

community colleges in their areas, each of which is on state lists. Another 

local board we visited in California conducts regional ETPL workshops 

with training providers and shares ideas with other local boards in the 

surrounding areas. 

More than half of the local boards found linking ITAs with local economic 

and business development strategies to be a challenge. Several local 

boards provided different examples of why they found it difficult to 

provide participants with training in high-demand occupations in their 

area. The area around one local board we visited in California faced a 

nursing shortage, but nearby training for nurses was difficult to obtain. 

Some area community colleges were opting not to provide nursing training 

because they could not recoup the costs of operating them. A local board 

we visited in Georgia also said that keeping up with businesses’ needs is a 

challenge and noted that some information technology sector-based 

training courses are not always available. Other local boards identified 

some initiatives they are pursuing to strengthen links with economic 

development. For example: 

• A local board in Michigan partners with a local technical training 

center to develop intensive, short-term certificate programs in highskill, high-wage, and high-demand fields. The technical center is 

operated by a local community college but offers non-credit certificate 

programs responsive to business and community needs. 

• A local board in Ohio works closely with the local Chambers of 

Commerce and economic development partners to formulate training 

programs that are based on employer demands. Specifically, if the 

board hears that a group of employers have a skill need, then the board 

will develop the appropriate training program with a service provider. 
Page 29 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

• A local board in Texas uses an industry cluster analysis report to focus 

attention on specific industries and then targets funds for training in 

these sectors. Training institutions must prepare industry-approved 

training curriculums in order to have programs approved by the local 

board and to have ITAs issued to participants for training. 

• A local board in Washington partnered with representatives from local 

education, economic development, and government to develop a 

shared blueprint for economic development and training around eight 

high-demand industry clusters. 

A number of local boards representing rural locations mentioned that the 

requirement to use ITAs to purchase training from providers on the ETPL 

presented a different problem for them from their counterparts in urban 

areas. Local boards in Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, North 

Carolina, and Utah all mentioned that participants in rural areas have few 

nearby training providers from which to choose. Additionally, local boards 

in Kansas and Montana noted that being located in a rural area with 

limited providers makes dealing with ITAs burdensome. A local board that 

we visited in rural California applied for and received a waiver from using 

ITAs. The board directly contracts with a community college for a 2-year 

program to train participants to become registered nurses and an 18-

month program to train participants to become licensed vocational nurses. 

Through April 2004, 73 participants have completed the nursing programs, 

and according to the board, all were employed in their respective fields. 

Little is known on a national level about the outcomes of those being 

trained. Certain aspects of WIASRD have been found to be incomplete and 

unverified. Additionally, data generally cannot be compared across states 

or local areas because of differences in data definitions. Labor is taking 

some steps that may address these concerns and plans to complete an 

evaluation that will measure the overall impact of the WIA program. 

Our analysis of program year 2003 WIASRD has shown that the database 

does not contain information for a large number of data elements. It is 

unclear if these values are missing because Unemployment Insurance 

wage records are not available or because they simply were not entered 

into the database by officials. This finding reaffirms issues that have been 

raised previously about the quality of data that Labor uses to assess 

Little Is Known about 

Outcomes of Those 

Being Trained 

because of 

Weaknesses in Data 

Collected 

Concerns Remain That 

Data Collected Are 

Unreliable 
Page 30 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

program performance. Our 2004 report found that performance data 

submitted by states in quarterly and annual reports were not sufficiently 

reliable to determine outcomes for the WIA programs. 23 Labor’s Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) raised the same concerns in 2002 by noting that 

because of inadequate oversight of data collection and management, little 

assurance exists that the states’ performance data for all WIA programs 

are either accurate or complete.24 OIG’s report found that of the 12 local 

areas examined, none had adequately documented procedures for 

validating participant performance data. Similarly, none of the four states 

examined had sufficient procedures to ensure the accuracy of their 

reported performance data. At the time, OIG recommended that states use 

a statistical sampling method for validating reported data. 

Because of questions about the comparability of data elements, states’ 

performance data are of limited value for national comparisons, or even 

comparisons within a single state. Labor allows local areas to exercise 

some flexibility in determining how to collect and report certain 

performance data on participants. For example, while local areas collect 

data on a participant who leaves the program, they use different methods 

to determine when a person has officially exited from the program. 

WIASRD guidelines define participants as having exited the program on 

the last date they received WIA services. Labor allows two ways to define 

exit: (1) at the point of case closure or (2) when the participant has not 

received any services or training for more than 90 days and is not 

scheduled for future services. We found that local area definitions differ 

from this and from each other. For example, one local board we visited 

defines exit as occurring when participants are finished with their WIA 

services; another board defines exit when participants have found a new 

job and the wages for their new job are considered acceptable (regardless 

of the number of days that have passed since their last service). Wage and 

employment outcomes under these different circumstances would vary 

greatly, making it difficult to compare outcome data across local areas. In 

a prior report, we also noted the data are not comparable on what 

constitutes a credential—whether it is the attainment of a certified skill or 

 23GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve Quality of 

Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services, GAO-04-308 (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 23, 2004). 

24U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Workforce Investment Act 

Performance Outcomes Reporting Oversight , 06-02-006-03-390 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 

2002). 
Page 31 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

of a degree. 25 Labor allows states and local areas to determine what 

constitutes a credential. 

Labor is taking some steps to address data quality concerns and improve 

the data used at the national level. This includes implementing a new 

project to validate the performance information collected and reported 

under WIA. The data validation initiative covers both the accuracy of 

reports submitted to Labor on program activity and performance 

outcomes and the accuracy of individual data elements. The report 

validation checks the accuracy of states’ software used to calculate the 

performance reports submitted to Labor. For example, if a state reports, 

for a particular time frame, that 100 adults found employment after they 

received services, the validation software searches through the state’s 

electronic records to ensure that 100 records are found that match these 

criteria. Data element validation, on the other hand, evaluates the 

accuracy of the participant data used to generate reports submitted to 

Labor. The process compares selected information from a sample of 

participant exit records with the original paperwork that contained this 

information. Data element validation results in an estimate of the error 

rate for each data element that has been selected for validation. 

While Labor provides guidelines for the data validation, states are 

responsible for executing the initiative. Program year 2003 is the first year 

states have completed the process, and Labor plans to review state results 

and start setting acceptable standards for error rates. Eventually, Labor 

plans to hold states accountable for meeting accuracy standards. Once 

these accuracy standards are in place, states failing to meet the standards 

may lose eligibility for incentive awards or, in cases with significant 

deviations from the standards, may be sanctioned. Because this initiative 

is relatively new, it is too soon to tell if it will satisfactorily resolve all data 

quality problems associated with WIASRD outcome measures—but it is a 

step toward addressing these concerns. 

Labor is also in the initial stages of developing a single, streamlined 

reporting and record-keeping system that will replace a series of 

databases, including WIASRD, and may address some concerns about data 

 25GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to 

Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness, GAO-02-275 (Washington, D.C.: 

Feb. 1, 2002). 

Labor Is Taking Actions to 

Improve Data and Assess 

Impact of Program 
Page 32 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

quality. The system, formally called the ETA Management Information and 

Longitudinal Evaluation (EMILE), would replace the current data 

collection and reporting requirements for 12 employment and training 

programs. The goal of the new system is to allow for consistent, 

comparable analysis across Labor’s employment and training programs, 

using the same definitions for specific measures. These definitions, known 

as common measures, are to be implemented July 1, 2005, well before 

EMILE is implemented. 26 A feasibility analysis on the EMILE proposal, 

which will provide information on next steps, is in the planning stages and 

should be completed by December 2005, but it is unclear how soon EMILE 

will be implemented. 

Labor has plans to meet the requirement that it conduct at least one 

multisite study to determine the general effectiveness of the WIA program 

and the specific impacts of WIA services on the community and 

participants involved. WIA requires Labor to conduct at least one multisite 

evaluation using a control group by the end of fiscal year 2005. However, 

as noted in a prior report, Labor will not meet this deadline. 27 Labor is 

waiting for WIA reauthorization to begin the evaluation, and will likely 

wait until the second year after reauthorization to commission the study. 

Labor anticipates it will take at least 5 years to complete the first 

evaluation. 

WIA represented a fundamental shift for workforce development because 

it attempted to significantly change how employment and training services 

were provided and because it provided considerable latitude to those 

implementing WIA at the state and local levels, yet little is known about 

the impacts of these changes. In program year 2003, local workforce 

boards used a substantial amount of WIA funds to train a large number of 

individuals. During these times of increasingly tight federal budgets, it is 

important to know what types of training are the most successful and how 

the outcomes from training compare with outcomes from other services. 

We previously recommended that Labor take actions to improve data 

 26For additional information on EMILE and common measures, see GAO, Workforce 

Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches to Implement New 

Performance and Reporting Requirements, GAO-05-539 (Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005). 

27GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to 

Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help, GAO-04-657 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 1, 2004). 

Concluding 

Observations 
Page 33 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

quality and to conduct an impact evaluation of WIA services.28 While Labor 

is taking steps to address the accuracy of data contained in WIASRD, 

reliable information is not yet available on a national level as to the 

outcomes of those being trained. In addition, Labor will likely wait until 

2007 to conduct the multisite impact evaluation required by WIA. Our 

findings reaffirm the need for a continued focus on resolving reported data 

quality issues and determining what services are the most successful. 

We provided a draft of this report to Labor for review and comment. In its 

comments, Labor acknowledged that the WIA reporting system currently 

has limited information on training expenditures and training outcomes, 

but noted that some of our information conflicts with their estimates of 

these activities. In particular, Labor states the Administration’s estimate 

of the amount of WIA funds spent on training is lower than the 40 percent 

that we estimate was used for training in program year 2003. In addition, 

Labor estimates adult training enrollments to be roughly 200,000. We 

agree with Labor that the WIA reporting system has limited reliable 

information. As a result, we went directly to the local workforce boards to 

obtain as complete a picture as possible on the extent to which WIA funds 

were used for training and how many adults were trained in program year 

2003. Our information differs from Labor’s estimates in two ways. First, 

our report indicates that 40 percent of WIA funds were used for training in 

program year 2003. We define funds used for training to include funds 

spent as well as funds obligated. As shown in the report, of the 

approximately $929 million used for training in program year 2003, about 

$724 million was actually spent and another $205 million was obligated. 

Second, Labor’s estimate of 200,000 adults enrolled in training includes 

only those adults reported in WIASRD who exited from the program. Our 

estimate of 416,000 comes directly from the local workforce areas that 

provided the training and includes the total number of adults who received 

training in program year 2003, including those who had not exited from the 

program. We believe our estimates of the amount of WIA funds used for 

training and the number of adults trained represent a more complete and 

accurate picture than Labor’s estimates because we included all funds 

used for training in program year 2003, whether they were spent or 

obligated, and counted all adults who received training in program year 

2003, not just those who exited the program. 

 28See GAO-05-539, p. 36-37; GAO-04-496, p. 29; GAO-04-657, p. 41; and GAO-04-308, p. 31. 

Agency Comments 
Page 34 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Regarding our discussion on data quality, Labor stated that it appreciates 

that we recognize the steps taken to improve data quality through data 

validation and noted that it has provided states with the software, 

handbooks, user guides, and technical assistance necessary to develop 

reports and document validation. Labor commented that it plans to 

continue supporting data validation during the transition to common 

measures and is currently revising the software and related materials to 

match the new reporting requirements. In addition, Labor stated that in 

the coming months it will be publishing proposed revisions to the WIASRD 

in the Federal Register. Labor also has issued guidance standardizing the 

definition of “exit” for purposes of assessing program performance across 

all programs implementing common measures. Labor said that states will 

begin implementing the change on July 1, 2005, and believes that this will 

improve the comparability of WIA outcome data. We commend Labor’s 

efforts to improve data quality and acknowledge that these actions are a 

step in the right direction to having a reporting system that contains 

complete and accurate information. 

Labor also provided technical comments that we incorporated where 

appropriate. Labor’s entire comments are reproduced in appendix III. 

We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, relevant 

congressional committees, and other interested parties and will make 

copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

A list of related GAO products is included at the end of this report. If you 

or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-7215 or at nilsens@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 
Page 35 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Other contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in 

appendix IV. 

Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director 

Education, Workforce, and 

 Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 36 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

We were asked to determine (1) to what extent Workforce Investment Act 

(WIA) funds have been used for training, (2) how local workforce 

investment boards have managed the use of Individual Training Accounts 

(ITA) and what challenges they have encountered, and (3) what is known 

at the national level about the outcomes of those receiving training. To 

address these issues, we conducted a Web-based survey of all local 

workforce investment boards in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico, and visited eight local boards located in 4 states. We 

conducted our work from June 2004 to May 2005 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

To determine the extent to which program year 2003 WIA funds were used 

for training, how local workforce boards manage ITAs, and what 

challenges they have encountered, we conducted a Web-based survey of 

the local workforce investment boards for the 590 local workforce 

investment areas in existence in program year 2003. Program year 2003 

was the most recent year for which complete data were available. The 

basis for our list of local workforce investment boards was the directory 

from the National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB). To view the 

survey, go to www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-807SP. 

Prior to administering the survey, we pretested the content and format of 

the questionnaire with a number of local workforce investment boards to 

determine whether (1) the survey questions were clear, (2) the terms used 

were precise, (3) respondents were able to provide the financial and client 

data we were seeking, and (4) the questions were unbiased. We made 

changes to the content and format of the final questionnaire based on 

pretest results. 

The surveys were conducted using self-administered electronic 

questionnaires posted on the Web. We received completed surveys from 

428 boards (a 73 percent response rate). 

We attempted to assess the reliability of the responses to survey questions 

that asked for quantitative data relating to WIA funds used for training and 

numbers of clients served. We included questions in the survey that asked 

whether or not the local board carried out certain practices or procedures 

to ensure that databases or data systems used to produce the financial and 

client information we asked for were in fact reliable. These questions 

asked (1) if there were written procedures that defined data elements or 

specified how data were collected; (2) if routine internal reviews of data 

were conducted to check for errors in completeness, accuracy, or 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Web-Based Survey 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 37 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

reasonableness; (3) if periodic monitoring or audits of the data were 

conducted to check for errors in completeness, accuracy, or 

reasonableness; and (4) whether or not routine quality control procedures 

were in place such as data verification to source documents or computer 

edit checks. We asked these four questions separately for both the 

financial data and the client data obtained in the survey. If the local area 

responded that it had used at least two of the four practices or procedures 

to monitor the quality of the financial and participant data provided in 

their survey, we either accepted the responses or called for clarification, 

depending on which procedures were used.1

 If the local board responded 

that three or four of these practices or procedures were not used for either 

financial or client data, we did not use those data. In cases where the local 

board responded that it was not sure whether these practices or 

procedures had been carried out or did not answer three or more of the 

four questions, we telephoned the board to try to determine whether or 

not it had actually carried out these practices or procedures. In cases 

where we determined that the data actually did meet our data reliability 

criteria, based on these telephone calls, we accepted the responses. On the 

basis of the criteria, we accepted the financial data for all 428 of the 

completed surveys and we accepted the participant data for 425 of the 

completed surveys. In the three cases where we did not accept the 

participant data, we did retain and use responses from other sections of 

the survey. In addition to including the questions on data reliability in the 

survey, we also checked the consistency of responses on a number of 

survey questions that asked for numeric data. On the basis of these 

consistency checks, some responses were dropped from our analysis. 

We generated estimates to the population of 590 boards by treating the 428 

responding boards as a simple random sample. We chose to treat the 428 

responding boards as a simple random sample from the population of 590 

based on an analysis of the differences between the responding boards 

and the nonresponding boards. 

To determine if there were any significant differences between the 

responding boards and the nonresponding boards, we contacted officials 

in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to obtain the 

number of unemployed individuals for each local area. We obtained this 

 1

Because we believe that having written procedures was less important to define quality 

than the other three measures, we only accepted responses without clarification if the 

board reported using two of the three remaining procedures. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 38 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

number for all 590 boards in the population. We used this information to 

determine whether sample-based estimates of this characteristic 

generated from the responding boards compared favorably with the 

known population values. The known population value of the number of 

unemployed individuals fell within the 95 percent confidence interval 

surrounding the sample-based estimate. On the basis of these results, and 

our assessment that the number of unemployed individuals is correlated 

with key items we were estimating, we concluded that treating the 428 

responding boards as a simple random sample is not likely to introduce 

significant bias into estimates. Some of the 428 responding boards did not 

provide responses to all of the items in the survey. To improve our 

estimates, we employed a nearest neighbor hot deck imputation 

methodology to account for nonresponse of numerical items. 

Because we decided to treat the respondents as a simple random sample 

of boards, our results are estimates of the population of 590 boards and 

thus are subject to sampling errors that are associated with samples of this 

size and type. Our confidence in the precision of the results from this 

sample is expressed in 95 percent confidence intervals, which are 

expected to include the actual results in 95 percent of samples of this type. 

We calculated confidence intervals based on methods that are appropriate 

for a simple random sample. All percentage estimates have margins of 

error of plus or minus 5 percentage points or less. All numerical estimates 

other than percentages have relative margins of error of plus or minus 15 

percent or less, except for those shown in table 4. For example, an 

estimate of $1,000,000 with a relative margin of error of plus or minus 15 

percent would have a 95 percent confidence interval of $850,000 to 

$1,150,000. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 39 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Table 4: 95 Percent Confidence Intervals for Numeric Estimates with Margins of Error Exceeding 15 Percent of the Value of 

Those Estimates 

Question Estimate Lower bound Upper bound

National Emergency Grant (NEG) Carryover program funds $80,000,000 $58,000,000 $103,000,000

State set-asides carryover funds 87,000,000 66,000,000 108,000,000

Dislocated Worker funds obligated for training 83,000,000 70,000,000 96,000,000

NEG funds obligated for training 14,000,000 10,000,000 18,000,000

NEG funds expended on training 63,000,000 51,000,000 74,000,000

State set-asides funds obligated for training 17,000,000 14,000,000 21,000,000

NEG participants in on-the-job training 656 441 871

State set-asides participants in on-the-job training 2,217 1,744 2,690

Adult participants in customized training 13,424 9,584 17,264

Dislocated Worker participants in customized training 2,193 976 3,410

NEG participants in customized training 174 71 277

State set-asides participants in customized training 10,883 8,329 13,437

Total participants in customized training 26,674 21,432 31,916

Adult participants in other training 20,771 10,371 31,172

Dislocated Worker participants in other training 11,526 4,973 18,078

NEG participants in other training 2,193 895 3,492

State set-asides participants in other training 6,144 3,956 8,332

Total participants in other training $40,634 $23,542 $57,726

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: All dollar amounts are rounded to millions. 

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce other 

kinds of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For 

example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in the 

sources of information that are available to respondents, or in how the 

data are entered into a database or were analyzed can introduce unwanted 

variability into the survey results. We took steps in the development of the 

questionnaire, the data collection, and the data analysis to minimize these 

nonsampling errors. For example, social science survey specialists 

designed the questionnaire in collaboration with GAO staff with subject 

matter expertise. Then, the draft questionnaire was pretested with a 

number of local boards to ensure that the questions were relevant, clearly 

stated, and easy to comprehend. As mentioned above, we included 

additional questions to determine whether certain practices or procedures 

had been carried out on the financial and client data. When the data were 

analyzed, a second, independent analyst checked all computer programs. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 40 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Since this was a Web-based survey, respondents entered their answers 

directly into the electronic questionnaire. This eliminated the need to have 

the data keyed into a database, thus removing an additional source of 

error. 

We used two criteria in selecting site visit locations. First, we stratified the 

48 continental states and the District of Columbia into four categories 

according to amount of program year 2003 adult and dislocated worker 

formula funds to reflect states with varying funding sizes. The four 

categories were less than $10 million, $10 million to $25 million, over $25 

million to $50 million, and over $50 million. We selected one from each 

category. Second, we chose geographically dispersed states to help 

illuminate regional differences in implementing ITAs. From within each 

state, we judgmentally selected two local boards to provide a mix of urban 

and rural areas (see table 5). 

Table 5: Locations Selected for Site Visits 

Local workforce area Type City State 

Merced County Rural Merced California 

North Valley Job Training Consortium (NOVA) Urban Sunnyvale California 

Atlanta Regional Workforce Board (ARWB) Mixed Atlanta Georgia 

City of Atlanta Workforce Development Agency Urban Atlanta Georgia 

Region 16 Rural Burlington Iowa 

Region 9 Urban Davenport Iowa 

Baltimore County Urban Towson Maryland 

Western Maryland Rural Hagerstown Maryland 

Source: GAO analysis. 

At each location visited, we obtained general information about the local 

workforce area and additional information on WIA funding, local training 

policies implemented, challenges encountered, innovative practices, and 

reliability of data systems. To increase our confidence in the reliability of 

the data we gathered from our survey, we interviewed each local board we 

visited about data monitoring and quality control procedures and policies 

with respect to their financial and participant databases. We also asked the 

local boards we visited to show us samples of records in their databases 

and to trace them to source documents. We generally found their data 

quality processes and procedures to be sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of our report. 

Site Visits 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 41 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

To determine whether the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record 

Data (WIASRD) might be a viable source of data for outcomes of training 

participants, we reviewed our prior reports about the reliability of the 

WIASRD data and a report by Labor’s Office of the Inspector General on 

WIA performance outcomes. We also performed electronic tests of the 

program year 2003 WIASRD data to check for missing values. The 

variables analyzed included employment after first, third, and fifth 

quarters after exit quarter, and type of credential attained. Missing data 

due to unemployment insurance wage data lags were taken under 

consideration. On the basis of our analysis, we determined that the 

WIASRD data elements pertinent to this report were not sufficiently 

reliable for our purposes. We have discussed the data reliability issues 

throughout the body of the report. 

Assessment of WIASRD 
Appendix II: Summary of Adult and 

Dislocated Worker Formula Funds for 

Program Year 2003 

Page 42 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

State Adult allotment

Dislocated worker

allotment Total

Alabama $15,735,991 $19,648,431 $35,384,422 

Alaska 3,074,377 3,532,589 6,606,966 

Arizona 16,031,216 19,236,076 35,267,292 

Arkansas 8,471,046 8,381,623 16,852,669 

California 127,752,492 181,115,296 308,867,788 

Colorado 6,355,326 12,644,518 18,999,844 

Connecticut 5,139,126 6,545,965 11,685,091 

Delaware 2,230,852 1,619,829 3,850,681 

District of Columbia 3,029,095 3,412,007 6,441,102 

Florida 42,307,802 56,526,693 98,834,495 

Georgia 16,339,645 19,872,747 36,212,392 

Hawaii 4,153,045 3,507,793 7,660,838 

Idaho 3,478,699 4,600,066 8,078,765 

Illinois 43,313,151 63,671,542 106,984,693 

Indiana 11,927,202 18,667,803 30,595,005 

Iowa 3,463,590 4,733,474 8,197,064 

Kansas 5,201,245 5,859,682 11,060,927 

Kentucky 14,994,952 15,324,618 30,319,570 

Louisiana 20,489,917 22,106,456 42,596,373 

Maine 2,518,154 2,406,018 4,924,172 

Maryland 11,088,755 13,818,649 24,907,404 

Massachusetts 9,103,791 16,275,735 25,379,526 

Michigan 37,251,688 49,051,997 86,303,685 

Minnesota 8,412,429 10,814,167 19,226,596 

Mississippi 12,275,609 14,986,889 27,262,498 

Missouri 15,184,213 17,356,406 32,540,619 

Montana 3,180,736 2,068,283 5,249,019 

Nebraska 2,230,852 2,876,482 5,107,334 

Nevada 5,454,619 9,336,077 14,790,696 

New Hampshire 2,230,852 2,491,345 4,722,197 

New Jersey 20,367,136 29,967,785 50,334,921 

New Mexico 7,517,971 7,051,503 14,569,474 

New York 64,530,126 85,269,181 149,799,307 

North Carolina 25,708,051 43,355,653 69,063,704 

North Dakota 2,230,852 946,647 3,177,499 

Appendix II: Summary of Adult and 

Dislocated Worker Formula Funds for 

Program Year 2003 
Appendix II: Summary of Adult and 

Dislocated Worker Formula Funds for 

Program Year 2003 

Page 43 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

State Adult allotment

Dislocated worker

allotment Total

Ohio 37,225,801 39,094,488 76,320,289 

Oklahoma 7,232,422 6,326,289 13,558,711 

Oregon 14,830,033 25,631,266 40,461,299 

Pennsylvania 31,676,565 44,790,835 76,467,400 

Puerto Rico 41,665,749 36,808,705 78,474,454 

Rhode Island 2,230,852 2,571,482 4,802,334 

South Carolina 13,557,999 17,614,232 31,172,231 

South Dakota 2,230,852 1,272,804 3,503,656 

Tennessee 17,271,017 17,675,156 34,946,173 

Texas 74,133,194 91,170,377 165,303,571 

Utah 3,515,501 6,438,510 9,954,011 

Vermont 2,230,852 1,293,147 3,523,999 

Virginia 13,242,958 13,971,928 27,214,886 

Washington 25,736,856 39,224,868 64,961,724 

West Virginia 8,053,562 6,914,091 14,967,653 

Wisconsin 12,501,089 19,319,871 31,820,960 

Wyoming 2,230,852 951,173 3,182,025 

Total $892,340,757 $1,150,149,247 $2,042,490,004 

Source: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. 

Note: Amounts identified reflect the adult and dislocated worker program year 2003 funds after the 

0.59 percent rescission. Totals exclude the seven outlying areas (American Samoa, Guam, Marshall 

Islands, Micronesia, Northern Mariana, Palau, and Virgin Islands). 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 44 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Labor 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 45 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 46 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 47 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Sigurd R Nilsen (202) 512-7215 

Joan Mahagan, Assistant Director, and Wayne Sylvia, Analyst-in-Charge, 

managed all aspects of the assignment. Rebecca Woiwode made 

significant contributions to this report in all aspects of the work. In 

addition, Amanda Mackison and Matthew Saradjian assisted in the survey 

design, data collection, and report writing; Stuart Kaufman and Shana 

Wallace assisted in the design of the national survey and the assessment of 

the survey’s data reliability; James Ashley and Sidney Schwartz assisted in 

data projections of the national survey; Grant Mallie and Stefanie Bdzusek 

assisted in analyzing the national survey responses; Joan Vogel assisted in 

assessing the data reliability of the WIASRD data; Jessica Botsford and 

Richard Burkard provided legal support; and Corinna Nicolaou provided 

writing assistance. 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products 

Page 48 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative 

Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting 

Requirements. GAO-05-539.Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied 

with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address 

Employers’ Needs. GAO-05-259. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2005. 

Public Community Colleges And Technical Schools: Most Schools Use 

Both Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development. 

GAO-05-04. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 18, 2004. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms Have Accelerated Training 

Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges Remain. GAO-04-1012. 

Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed 

Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. 

GAO-04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004. 

National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve 

Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant 

Awards and Improve Data. GAO-04-496. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve 

Quality of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. 

GAO-04-308. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2004. 

National Emergency Grants: Services to Dislocated Workers Hampered 

by Delays in Grant Awards, but Labor Is Initiating Actions to Improve 

Grant Award Process. GAO-04-222. Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to 

Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization. 

GAO-03-884T. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to 

Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and 

Information Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 

2003. 

Related GAO Products 
Related GAO Products 

Page 49 GAO-05-650 Workforce Investment Act 

Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for 

Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO-03-636. Washington, D.C.: 

April 25, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: Interim Report on Status of Spending and 

States’ Available Funds. GAO-02-1074. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 5, 2002. 

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding 

Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274. 

Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2002. 

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns 

over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2001. 

(130378) 
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 Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER