Report to Congressional Requesters

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

May 2005 WORKFORCE 

INVESTMENT ACT 

Labor Should 

Consider Alternative 

Approaches to 

Implement New 

Performance and 

Reporting 

Requirements 

GAO-05-539 
Page i GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Letter 1

Appendix I Briefing Slides 5 

Appendix II Additional State Survey Data 38 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Labor 54 

GAO Response 57 

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 59 

GAO’s Related Products 60 

Tables 

Table 1: Which States Have IT Systems that Collect Information on 

the WIA Title I-B Programs and also Currently Capture 

Program Information for Other U.S. Department of Labor 

(USDOL) Employment and Training Administration 

Programs? 38 

Table 2: Which States Have IT Systems that Collect Information on 

the WIA Title I-B Programs and also Currently Capture 

Program Information for Other One-Stop Partner 

Programs? 42 

Table 3: Status of Statewide Systems to Collect Unique Identifiers 

For All Jobseekers and Employers Who Use the One-Stop 

System 46 

Table 4: From the time your state first began implementing 

changes to the IT system under WIA, about how long did it 

take your state to fully implement the IT system changes 

that were necessary to meet the federal requirements for 

the quarterly reports, annual report, and WIASRD 

(Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data)? 48 

Table 5: Compared to the effort your state invested in the transition 

from the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) to WIA, how 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

much effort do you anticipate investing in implementing 

EMILE, as proposed? 50 

Table 6: About how long do you estimate it will take your state to 

fully implement the necessary changes for EMILE, as 

proporsed, once Labor’s requirements are final? 52 

Abbreviations 

EMILE ETA Management Information and Longitudinal Evaluation 

ETA Employment and Training Administration 

IT information technology 

WIA Workforce Investment Act 

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-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

May 27, 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 

In a period of significant budget constraints, it is more vital than ever for 

federal programs to have good performance information. The Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 took a significant step in that direction by 

introducing greater accountability for employment and training programs 

than prior programs. WIA established performance measures to look at a 

broad array of participant outcomes such as job placement and retention, 

earnings, skill gains, and customer satisfaction. WIA also required 17 

programs, funded by four different agencies, to centralize service delivery 

through a one-stop center system. More recently, as part of efforts to link 

program performance to the budget, the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) introduced common performance measures—similar to some of 

the WIA measures—for most federally funded job training programs that 

share similar goals. The U.S. Department of Labor’s (Labor) Employment 

and Training Administration (ETA) further defined the common measures 

for all programs it oversees and proposed a new, standardized reporting 

format, known as the ETA Management Information and Longitudinal 

Evaluation (EMILE) reporting system to facilitate reporting them. 

However, state workforce agencies and others raised substantial concerns 

about the timing and scope of the EMILE reporting system. Despite 

delaying EMILE, Labor recently took steps to move ahead with reporting 

changes for the common measures, requiring states to implement these 

changes by July 1, 2005. 

Given the importance of these issues and their potential impact on the 

quality of the performance data, you asked us to examine (1) states’ 

concerns about implementing Labor’s proposed EMILE reporting system 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

and (2) the effect that the implementation of common measures and other 

new reporting changes might have on states’ ability to collect data and 

report on WIA’s performance. 

To address these issues, we conducted a Web-based survey and received 

responses from 48 of the 50 states. We did not include Washington, D.C. 

and U.S. territories in our survey. In addition, we visited New York, West 

Virginia, California, Texas, and Wyoming, and two local areas in each 

state. We selected these states because they represent a range of 

information technology (IT) systems—statewide comprehensive systems 

versus local systems with a state reporting function, include single and 

multiple workforce areas, and are geographically diverse. To learn more 

about proposed reporting changes, we met with U.S. Department of Labor 

officials and reviewed legislation, federal guidance, and other documents 

relevant to WIA’s reporting system. We also reviewed the official 

responses of six associations and 38 states to the July 2004 Federal 

Register Notice that introduced the EMILE reporting system. We 

conducted our work from June 2004 through April 2005 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

On April 21, 2005, we provided a briefing on the results of our work to 

your staff. This report formally conveys the information provided during 

that briefing, which is contained in appendix I. We also provided some 

additional state survey data in appendix II. 

In summary, we found that while many states supported streamlined 

reporting, 36 states indicated that implementing the EMILE system, as 

proposed, would be very burdensome. Most states indicated that 

launching EMILE would require as much or more effort than was required 

of them to meet WIA reporting requirements in 2000. Labor has 

underestimated the magnitude and type of changes EMILE would require 

and the resources states would need in order to implement it. Labor 

developed EMILE with limited consultation with state officials. 

While the use of the common measures could increase the comparability 

of outcome information across programs and provide a more complete 

picture of the one-stop system, states will face challenges in making the 

required changes. For example, states will be required to track all 

jobseekers who receive services at one-stop centers, although it is unclear 

how many states and local areas are prepared to do so. In addition, one of 

the common measures will replace the current WIA earnings measure for 

dislocated workers, which may be a disincentive for serving this 

population. Moreover, states have very little time to make the necessary 
Page 3 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

changes before they must begin data collection and reporting using the 

new requirements. While Labor publicized its plans to adopt the common 

measures, states were notified only in late February that Labor planned to 

implement changes on July 1, 2005, and final guidance was not issued until 

April 15, 2005. 

In conclusion, Labor’s initiatives to introduce common measures and a 

comprehensive reporting system could foster program integration and 

provide a better picture of WIA’s reach, but Labor underestimated the 

cost, time, and effort required of states to make such changes. Ongoing 

consultation with states and pilot testing may have enhanced Labor’s 

effort to move forward with EMILE. Labor has not provided guidance in a 

timely manner for states to implement the changes related to the common 

measures. Rushed implementation could negatively affect data quality and 

compromise the potential benefits of proposed changes. While some states 

have the capacity to collect and report data on all jobseekers, many others 

do not, and states and local areas need enough time to fully meet these 

requirements. Moreover, unless Labor ensures that states collect the data 

in a consistent manner, the information will not be comparable across 

states. 

To ensure states’ ability to implement proposed reporting system changes, 

we recommend that Labor consider alternative approaches to reach the 

goals of EMILE and perform an assessment that considers the costs and 

benefits. To help states and local areas develop the capacity to track all 

jobseekers who use one-stop services in a consistent manner, Labor 

should use the first year as a test phase and work with states to identify 

promising practices in collecting and reporting this data, and provide 

technical assistance to states that do not have this capacity. 

We provided officials at the Department of Labor an opportunity to 

comment on a draft of this report. Labor agreed with our recommendation 

that it work with states in identifying promising practices to ensure that 

states and local areas track all jobseekers in a consistent manner. Labor 

did not respond to our recommendation that it consider alternative 

approaches to reach the goals of EMILE. In addition, Labor raised 

concerns about some of the material in the report. We believe these 

concerns do not require changes to the material. Labor's comments and a 

more detailed discussion of our response are in appendix III. Labor also 

provided technical comments, which we have incorporated in our report, 

as appropriate. 
Page 4 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

We will send copies of this report to relevant congressional committees, 

the Secretary of Labor, and other interested parties. We will also make 

copies available to others upon request. 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 members of your staff have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-7215 or Dianne Blank at (202) 512-5654. You may 

also reach us by e-mail at nilsens@gao.gov or blankd@gao.gov. Other 

contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix IV. 

Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 5 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

1

Workforce Investment Act: States Are 

Challenged to Meet Proposed New 

Reporting Requirements

Briefing to Congressional Requesters

April 21, 2005
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 6 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

2

Research Objectives

• What are states’ concerns about implementing Labor’s 

proposed ETA Management Information and Longitudinal 

Evaluation (EMILE) reporting system?

• What effect might implementation of common measures and 

other new reporting changes have on states’ ability to collect 

data and report on WIA’s performance? 
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 7 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

3

Scope and Methodology

• Conducted a Web-based survey of all states (results represent 48 

states) 

• Visited 5 states (California, New York, Texas, West Virginia, and 

Wyoming) and 2 local areas in each

• Reviewed 6 associations’ and 38 states’ comments to Federal 

Register Notice on the proposed EMILE reporting system

• Interviewed Labor officials

• Reviewed legislation, federal guidance, and other documents relevant 

to WIA’s reporting system 

• Our work was performed from June 2004 to April 2005 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 8 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

4

Summary of Findings

• While states said they support the overall direction of Labor’s 

EMILE reporting system, they have concerns about the 

burden and time needed to implement proposed changes.

• Common measures and new reporting changes can provide 

a better picture of the one-stop system, but implementation 

will pose challenges for states and could affect WIA’s

reported performance, if not implemented carefully.
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 9 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

5

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 promoted greater 

accountability for job training programs by:

3⁄4 establishing new performance measures for the 3 WIA-funded 

programs (Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth);

3⁄4 requiring the use of the Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage 

records to track and report outcomes; 

3⁄4 requiring Labor to negotiate performance goals with states and 

award incentives and impose sanctions based on the 

performance; and

3⁄4 requiring Labor to conduct impact evaluations of the WIAfunded programs.

Background:

WIA Introduced Major Changes to Performance 

Measurement
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 10 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

6

Labor currently collects WIA participant and performance data through 

quarterly and annual reports and a more detailed annual file:

3⁄4 Quarterly and annual reports provide a summary of states’ 

performance on the 17 core measures. The annual reports are 

used for determining incentives and sanctions.

3⁄4 The annual Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record 

Data (WIASRD) provides characteristics, activities, and 

outcome information on registered participants who exited WIA 

services during a program year.

Background:

Performance Reports for WIA
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 11 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

7

WIA Performance Measures Track and Report:

Adults and Dislocated Workers:

Those who receive services requiring significant staff 

assistance and who complete or exit WIA or partner 

services 

All Youth:

Those who are determined eligible and receive WIA 

services 

Not Tracked and Reported:

Those using self-assisted services and receiving limited staff 

assistance

Background:

Which Job Seekers Are Reported?
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 12 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

8

Timeliness of Guidance:

Guidance delayed – In a previous study, we found that Labor’s final 

guidance on how to report WIA performance data was issued 8 

months after states were required to begin collecting data.

Data Quality:

Data not reliable – We and others have found that WIA performance data 

are not sufficiently reliable to determine outcomes. Concerns include the 

lack of consistent definitions, which leads to variations in reporting.

Data Comprehensiveness:

Incomplete picture of one-stop system – States are not required to track 

and report on all customers being served.

Note: Labor implemented new data validation requirements in 2004 to address data quality issues.

Background:

History of Concerns over WIA Performance Data
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 13 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

9

April 2002 – The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) introduced 

common performance measures for WIA and other federal job training 

programs as part of efforts to link program performance to the budget.

• Common measures provide a tool for comparing performance across programs with similar goals.

• A common goal of job training programs is to improve participants’ employment and earnings. Yet without common measures, each 

program measures these goals in a different way.

• Common measures apply to job training programs administered by Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban 

Development, Interior, and Veterans Affairs.

Dec. 2003 – Labor developed standard definitions for common measures for 

its Employment and Training Administration (ETA) programs.

Background:

OMB Introduced Common Measures

for WIA and Other Workforce Programs
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 14 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

10

Common Measures Are Similar to Some 

of the WIA Measures

Background:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 15 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

11

July 2004 – Labor proposed a comprehensive reporting system as a vehicle 

to collect data for the common measures and to integrate reporting for WIA 

with other ETA job training programs. Labor targeted July 1, 2005 for 

implementation. The proposed ETA Management Information and 

Longitudinal Evaluation (EMILE) system would:

3⁄4 Combine12 program reporting systems into one reporting structure

3⁄4 Replace the current WIA quarterly report, WIASRD, and other 

programs’ reports with 3 new reports;

9 an employer individual record, 

9 a jobseeker individual record, and

9 a Workforce Investment Quarterly Summary 

Note: EMILE was proposed in a Federal Register Notice on July 16, 2004, for public comment.

Labor Followed with a Comprehensive Proposal

Background:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 16 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

12

Comments to Federal Register Notice Delayed EMILE

• Following the volume of responses to the July 2004 Federal Register Notice on EMILE, (166 responses with comments from 

38 states), Labor delayed implementation.

New Guidance to Move Forward on Common Measures

• Feb. 2005 - Labor issued guidance notifying states of plans to implement the common measures (along with some additional 

reporting changes) for 4 programs:

9 by July 1, 2005 for WIA, Wagner-Peyser, and Veterans’ 

Employment and Training Service programs, 

9 by Oct. 1, 2005 for the Trade Adjustment Assistance program.

Background:

Labor Delayed EMILE but Moved Ahead with 

Common Measures
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 17 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

13

States Support Streamlined Reporting, 

but Concerned with EMILE Proposal

Of the 38 states that provided comments to the July 2004 

Federal Register Notice:

• Nineteen states supported the goal of EMILE to have a 

more integrated reporting system than current individual 

program systems

• Nearly all–36 states–expressed concerns that 

implementation would be burdensome

Objective One:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 18 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

14

Changes to Reporting Systems Involve 

People, Process, and Technology

Source: GAO analysis.

Objective One:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 19 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

15

Prior Changes to IT Systems for WIA Required 

Significant Effort

All 48 states responding to our survey made changes to their 

information technology (IT) systems under WIA, such as adding new 

data elements and reporting capabilities.

3⁄437 states made major system changes such as building a 

completely new system or switching to internet-based 

software

3⁄4Four states said that they developed new IT systems when 

WIA began and have changed IT systems again because 

their first system was inadequate. 

Objective One:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 20 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

16

24 States Took More than 1 Year to 

Change IT Systems for WIA

Source: GAO state survey.

Objective One:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 21 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

17

31 States Said EMILE Would Require as 

Much or More Effort than WIA

Compared to WIA, the Effort to Implement EMILE Will Be:

Source: GAO state survey.

Objective One:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 22 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

18

States Said EMILE Would Affect People, 

Process, and Technology

Source: GAO analysis.

Objective One:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 23 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

19

State Estimates of EMILE Start-up Costs Far 

Exceed Labor’s Estimates

Objective One:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 24 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

20

Labor’s Estimated Burden for State 

Implementation Is Too Low

• Labor’s start-up estimates for EMILE assume that half of the states have a 

consolidated IT system for state-run programs–WIA, Wagner-Peyser, 

Trade Adjustment Assistance, and National Emergency Grants:

3⁄4 However, our survey results show that while 21 states have IT 

systems for collecting data for these programs, they may not be truly 

consolidated.

• Labor expects states to pay for all of the changes needed for EMILE with no 

additional funding.

• Labor developed its estimates with limited consultation with state officials.

Objective One:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 25 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

21

New Guidance and Training Would 

Require as Much Effort as IT Changes

Source: GAO state survey.

Objective One:

States That Said Changes Would Require Moderate to Very Great Efforts
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 26 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

22

20 States Estimate Changes for EMILE Would 

Take More than 1 Year

Source: GAO state survey.

Objective One:

Time Needed to Implement EMILE
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 27 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

23

Labor is Now Rethinking EMILE and States 

Have Suggested Alternatives

• Labor is conducting a feasibility study to gauge the impact of EMILE 

implementation on states. Study is expected to be completed in 

December 2005.

• Some states have suggested alternative approaches for 

implementing reporting system changes such as EMILE:

3⁄4 Ten states suggested that Labor adopt a phased approach for 

implementing EMILE 

3⁄4 Four states suggested that Labor pilot reporting changes prior 

to full implementation

Objective One:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 28 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

24

Benefits:

• Common measures will allow Labor to describe outcomes in a 

similar manner across employment and training programs.

• New reporting change to track all jobseekers will provide a more

complete picture of the one-stop system.

Challenges:

• Requires new data elements in addition to existing reporting 

requirements.

• Changes how WIA dislocated workers’ earnings outcomes are 

counted.

• States may not be prepared to track all jobseekers.

• States may not have enough time to implement changes.

Objective Two:

Common Measures and Other Changes Have 

Benefits, but Pose Challenge
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 29 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

25

Common Measures and New Reporting 

Include Some Major Data Changes 

New and revised measures

9 Begin reporting data for two new youth measures in addition to 

WIA measures

9 Changes WIA’s earnings measure for dislocated workers

New and changed data collection

9 Collect and report data on all jobseekers by including those 

who only use self-assisted services.

9 No more “hard exits”—exiting a participant on a date of case 

closure, or completion of services. Program exit will be 

determined only when an individual has not received any 

service from any partner program for 90 days.

Objective Two:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 30 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

26

Changes to WIA’s Performance Measure for 

Dislocated Workers

The current dislocated worker program earnings replacement rate measure will 

be changed to a 6-month earnings increase measure.

Source: Labor’s Training and Employment Guidance Letter 7-99, Labor’s Workforce Investment Act Annual Report: General Reporting Instructions, and ETA Form 9091, 

revised 2005.

Objective Two:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 31 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

27

Changes May Negatively Affect Reported 

Performance

Few Dislocated Workers Achieve Wage Gains:

• Dislocated workers generally earn less after program exit than prior 

to separation from employment.

• With new measure, pre-program wages for dislocated workers may 

be inflated by severance pay, making it even more difficult to show 

any wage gain.

Labor’s Remedy:

• Allow states to subtract severance pay from pre-program wages 

found in the UI wage records, although it is not clear whether states 

have the capacity to do this.

Objective Two:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 32 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

28

State Capacity to Collect Data on All 

Jobseekers Varies

While 30 states reported on our survey that they have a state system to track 

all jobseekers, it is not clear how many are ready to report this information to 

Labor.

3⁄4 Texas and California can track all jobseekers in their state IT 

systems, but do not require local areas to report this information. 

3⁄4 A previous GAO study found that just over half of local areas track 

jobseekers who repeatedly use one-stops, suggesting that some 

locals have capacity to uniquely identify and track each jobseeker.

3⁄4 New York took 1 1⁄2 years to implement local swipe card systems 

across the state to collect information on all jobseekers at one-stops. 

However, the local swipe card systems are not connected to the 

state’s WIA reporting system.

Objective Two:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 33 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

29

Timeline for Implementing New Common 

Measures Reporting Requirements

Source: GAO analysis.

Objective Two:
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 34 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

30

Conclusions

• Labor’s plans to implement comprehensive reporting and common 

measures across workforce programs could help foster integration and 

provide a better picture of the one-stop system.

• However, Labor underestimated costs, time, and efforts for states to make 

changes. 

• While Labor is now conducting a feasibility study of EMILE, ongoing 

consultation with states and pilot testing may have enhanced Labor’s earlier 

efforts. 

• In the past and with new requirements, Labor has not provided guidance in 

a timely manner for states to implement changes. 

• Rushed implementation could negatively affect data quality and 

compromise the potential benefits of proposed changes.
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 35 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

31

Conclusions

• Collecting data on all jobseekers using one-stops can help provide 

a better picture of the full reach of WIA. 

3⁄4Some states have this capacity, but many do not. 

3⁄4States and local areas need time to fully develop capacity to 

collect and report this information. 

3⁄4Unless Labor ensures that data collection is done in a 

consistent manner, the information will not be comparable 

on a national level.

• States may see the earnings increase measure as a disincentive for 

serving dislocated workers if these changes are not accounted for 

in negotiating performance goals.
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 36 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

32

Recommendations

To ensure states’ ability to implement proposed reporting system

changes:

• Labor should consider alternative approaches to reach the 

goals of EMILE and perform an assessment that considers the 

costs and benefits of such investments. Alternative approaches 

could include:

3⁄4ongoing consultation with key stakeholders;

3⁄4implementing changes in phases; and 

3⁄4pilot testing and evaluating changes before full 

implementation.
Appendix I: Briefing Slides 

Page 37 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

33

Recommendations

To help states and local areas develop the capacity to track all

jobseekers who use one-stop services in a consistent manner, Labor 

should:

• Use the first year of implementation as a test phase and work 

with states to identify promising practices in collecting and 

reporting this data, and provide technical assistance to states 

that do not have this capacity.
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 

Page 38 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Table 1: Which States Have IT Systems that Collect Information on the WIA Title I-B Programs and also Currently Capture 

Program Information for Other U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) Employment and Training Administration Programs? 

State Name 

Employment 

Service 

(Wagner-Peyser) 

Trade 

Adjustment 

Assistance 

Veterans’ 

Employment and 

Training Program 

Unemployment 

Insurance Program 

National 

Emergency 

Grants Job Corps

Alaska • 

Alabama • 

Arkansas • • • 

California • 

Colorado • • • • 

Connecticut • • 

Delaware • • • • 

Florida • • • 

Georgia • • • • 

Hawaii • • • • 

Iowa • 

Idaho • 

Illinois • • 

Indiana • 

Kansas • • • • • • 

Kentucky • • • • • 

Louisiana • • • 

Massachusetts • • • • 

Maine • • • • • 

Michigan • • • 

Minnesota • 

Missouri • • • 

Mississippi • 

Montana 

North Carolina • 

North Dakota • • • 

Nebraska • • 

New Hampshire • 

New Jersey • • • • 

New Mexico • • • • 

Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 

Page 39 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Welfare-to-Work 

grant-funded 

program 

Senior 

Community 

Service 

Employment 

program 

Employment 

and training for 

migrant and 

seasonal farm 

workers 

Employment 

and Training for 

Native 

Americans 

Responsible 

Reintegration of 

Youthful 

Offender Grants

H-1B Technical 

Skills Training 

Grants 

Total ETA 

Programs 

 • 2 

• • 3 

• 4 

• 2 

• • • • 8 

 • 3 

 • 5 

 3 

• • 6 

 • 5 

• 2 

 • 2 

• 3 

 1 

• • • • 10 

 • 6 

• 4 

 • • 6 

• • 7 

• 4 

 1 

• 4 

 1 

 0 

• • 3 

 • 4 

 2 

• • 3 

• • 6 

 4 
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 

Page 40 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

State Name 

Employment 

Service 

(Wagner-Peyser) 

Trade 

Adjustment 

Assistance 

Veterans’ 

Employment and 

Training Program 

Unemployment 

Insurance Program 

National 

Emergency 

Grants Job Corps

 

Nevada • • • • • 

New York • • • • • 

Ohio • • 

Oklahoma • • • • 

Oregon • 

Pennsylvania • • • 

Rhode Island • • • • 

South Carolina • 

South Dakota • • • • 

Tennessee • • • • 

Texas • • • 

Utah • • • • • 

Virginia • 

Vermont • • 

Washington • • • • • 

Wisconsin • • • • • 

West Virginia • • • • • 

Wyoming • • • 
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 

Page 41 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Welfare-towork grantfunded 

program 

Senior 

community 

service 

employment 

program 

Employment and

training for 

migrant and 

seasonal farm

workers 

Employment 

and training 

for Native 

Americans 

Responsible 

reintegration 

of youthful 

offender 

grants 

H-1B 

technical 

skills 

training 

grants 

Total ETA 

programs 

 • 6 

 • 6 

 2 

• 5 

 1 

 • 4 

 • 5 

 1 

 • 5 

 4 

• • 5 

 5 

 1 

 2 

• • 7 

• • 7 

• • 7 

 • • 5 

Source: GAO state survey. 
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 

Page 42 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Table 2: Which States Have IT Systems that Collect Information on the WIA Title I-B 

Programs and also Currently Capture Program Information for Other One-Stop 

Partner Programs? 

State Name 

Vocational 

Rehabilitation 

program 

Adult Education 

and Literacy 

Vocational 

Education (Perkins 

Act) 

Alaska 

Alabama 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado • • • 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Florida 

Georgia 

Hawaii 

Iowa 

Idaho 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Kansas • • • 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Massachusetts 

Maine • 

Michigan • 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

Mississippi 

Montana 

North Carolina 

North Dakota 

Nebraska 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey • 

New Mexico 
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 

Page 43 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Community 

Services Block 

Grant 

HUD-administered 

employment and 

training 

Temporary 

Assistance 

for Needy 

Families 

Food Stamp 

Employment 

and Training 

Other One-stop 

Partners 

Total Partner 

Programs 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 • • • 6 

 • • 2 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 • 1 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 0 

• • • • 7 

 0 

• 1 

 0 

 1 

 • • 3 

 • • 2 

 • • • 3 

 0 

 0 

 0 

 • 1 

 0 

 0 

 • • • 4 

 0 
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 

Page 44 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

State Name 

Vocational 

Rehabilitation

program 

Adult 

Education and 

Literacy 

Vocational Education 

(Perkins Act) 

Nevada 

New York 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina • • • 

South Dakota 

Tennessee • 

Texas 

Utah 

Virginia 

Vermont 

Washington • • • 

Wisconsin 

West Virginia 

Wyoming 
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 

Page 45 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Community 

services 

block 

grant 

HUDadministered 

employment 

and training 

Temporary 

Assistance 

for Needy 

Families 

Food Stamp 

Employment 

and training 

Other 

One-Stop 

Partners 

 0 

 0 

 • 1 

 • 1 

 0 

 • 1 

 0 

• • • • 8 

 0 

 • 2 

 • • • 3 

 • • • 3 

 0 

 0 

 • 5 

 • 1 

 0 

 0 

Source: GAO state survey. 
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 

Page 46 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Table 3: Status of Statewide Systems to Collect Unique Identifiers For All 

Jobseekers and Employers Who Use the One-Stop System 

State Name 

State has a statewide 

system to collect unique 

identifiers for all jobseekers 

who use the one-stop system 

State has a statewide 

system to collect unique 

identifiers for all employers 

who use the one-stop system 

Alaska • • 

Alabama • 

Arkansas • • 

California 

Colorado • • 

Connecticut • • 

Delaware • • 

Florida 

Georgia 

Hawaii • • 

Iowa • 

Idaho • 

Illinois • • 

Indiana 

Kansas • • 

Kentucky • • 

Louisiana • • 

Massachusetts • • 

Maine • • 

Michigan 

Minnesota • 

Missouri • • 

Mississippi 

Montana 

North Carolina • • 

North Dakota 

Nebraska • • 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey • • 

New Mexico • 

Nevada • • 

New York • • 
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 

Page 47 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

State Name 

State has a statewide 

system to collect unique 

identifiers for all jobseekers 

who use the one-stop system 

State has a statewide 

system to collect unique 

identifiers for all employers 

who use the one-stop system 

Ohio • 

Oklahoma • • 

Oregon • 

Pennsylvania • • 

Rhode Island • • 

South Carolina 

South Dakota • • 

Tennessee • • 

Texas 

Utah • • 

Virginia • • 

Vermont • • 

Washington • 

Wisconsin • • 

West Virginia 

Wyoming • • 

Source: GAO. 
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 

Page 48 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Table 4: From the time your state first began implementing changes to the IT system under WIA, about how long did it take 

your state to fully implement the IT system changes that were necessary to meet the federal requirements for the quarterly 

reports, annual report, and WIASRD (Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data)? 

Less than 6 

months 

6 months to 

1 year 

More than

1 year to 2 

years 

More than 2 

years to 3 years 

More than 

3 years No response

Alabama • 

Alaska • 

Arkansas • 

California • 

Colorado • 

Connecticut • 

Delaware • 

Florida • 

Georgia • 

Hawaii • 

Idaho • 

Illinois • 

Indiana • 

Iowa • 

Kansas • 

Kentucky • 

Louisiana • 

Maine • 

Massachusetts • 

Michigan • 

Minnesota • 

Mississippi • 

Missouri • 

Montana • 

Nebraska • 

Nevada • 

New Hampshire • 

New Jersey • 

New Mexico • 

New York • 

North Carolina • 

North Dakota • 
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 

Page 49 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Less than 6 

months 

6 months to 

1 year 

More than

1 year to 2 

years 

More than 2 

years to 3 years 

More than 

3 years No response

Ohio • 

Oklahoma • 

Oregon • 

Pennsylvania • 

Rhode Island • 

South Carolina • 

South Dakota • 

Tennessee • 

Texas • 

Utah • 

Vermont • 

Virginia • 

Washington • 

West Virginia • 

Wisconsin • 

Wyoming • 

Source: GAO. 
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 

Page 50 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Table 5: Compared to the effort your state invested in the transition from the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) to WIA, how 

much effort do you anticipate investing in implementing EMILE, as proposed? 

Much greater 

effort for EMILE

Somewhat 

greater effort 

for EMILE 

About the same 

effort 

Somewhat less

effort for EMILE

Much less 

effort for 

EMILE No response 

Alabama • 

Alaska • 

Arkansas • 

California • 

Colorado • 

Connecticut • 

Delaware • 

Florida • 

Georgia • 

Hawaii • 

Idaho • 

Illinois • 

Indiana • 

Iowa • 

Kansas • 

Kentucky • 

Louisiana • 

Maine • 

Massachusetts • 

Michigan • 

Minnesota • 

Mississippi • 

Missouri • 

Montana • 

Nebraska • 

Nevada • 

New Hampshire • 

New Jersey • 

New Mexico • 

New York • 

North Carolina • 

North Dakota • 

Ohio • 
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 

Page 51 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Much greater 

effort for EMILE

Somewhat 

greater effort 

for EMILE 

About the same 

effort 

Somewhat less

effort for EMILE

Much less 

effort for 

EMILE No response 

Oklahoma • 

Oregon • 

Pennsylvania • 

Rhode Island • 

South Carolina • 

South Dakota • 

Tennessee • 

Texas • 

Utah • 

Vermont • 

Virginia • 

Washington • 

West Virginia • 

Wisconsin • 

Wyoming • 

Source: GAO. 
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 

Page 52 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Table 6: About how long do you estimate it will take your state to fully implement the necessary changes for EMILE, as 

proposed, once Labor’s requirements are final? 

Less than 6 

months 

6 months to 

1 year 

More than 1 

year to 2 years 

More than 2 

years to 3 years

More than 

3 years No response 

Alabama • 

Alaska • 

Arkansas • 

California • 

Colorado • 

Connecticut • 

Delaware • 

Florida • 

Georgia • 

Hawaii • 

Idaho • 

Illinois • 

Indiana • 

Iowa • 

Kansas • 

Kentucky • 

Louisiana • 

Maine • 

Massachusetts • 

Michigan • 

Minnesota • 

Mississippi • 

Missouri • 

Montana • 

Nebraska • 

Nevada • 

New Hampshire • 

New Jersey • 

New Mexico • 

New York • 

North Carolina • 

North Dakota • 

Ohio • 

Oklahoma • 
Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data 

Page 53 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Less than 6 

months 

6 months to 

1 year 

More than 1 

year to 2 years 

More than 2 

years to 3 years

More than 

3 years No response 

Oregon • 

Pennsylvania • 

Rhode Island • 

South Carolina • 

South Dakota • 

Tennessee • 

Texas • 

Utah • 

Vermont • 

Virginia • 

Washington • 

West Virginia • 

Wisconsin • 

Wyoming • 

Source: GAO. 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Labor 

Page 54 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Labor 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Labor 

Page 55 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Labor 

Page 56 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Labor 

Page 57 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Labor agreed with our recommendation that it work with states in 

identifying promising practices to ensure that states and local areas track 

all jobseekers in a consistent manner. Labor did not respond to our 

recommendation that it consider alternative approaches to reach the goals 

of EMILE. However, Labor took issue with several statements throughout 

the briefing materials. 

Labor disagreed with our finding that it developed EMILE with limited 

consultation with states. Labor said it engaged in significant outreach 

efforts such as holding information sessions and participating in several 

conferences and online sessions to explain the proposed reporting system. 

Labor also identified over 160 comments it received to the July 16, 2004 

Federal Register Notice. However, the large number of concerns raised by 

the 38 states that responded to the notice suggests that the dialogue was 

insufficient to resolve concerns in the early development of the proposed 

EMILE reporting system. We continue to believe that Labor’s efforts to 

implement a system such as EMILE could be enhanced by alternative 

approaches such as ongoing consultation, testing, and implementing 

changes in phases. 

Labor expressed concern that we did not clearly distinguish EMILE from 

the common measures, stating that, in their view, these are separate and 

independent actions. Yet, in the Federal Register Notice on EMILE, Labor 

clearly linked implementation of the common measures with EMILE, 

stating that the common measures would become effective with reporting 

system changes and EMILE would help standardize data collection by 

using the definitions of the common measures. 

Labor disagreed with our finding that it had not provided guidance in a 

timely manner, noting that the initial guidance on common measures was 

issued in December 2003. Yet the detailed instructions on reporting 

changes were not issued until a March 29, 2005 Federal Register Notice. In 

addition, states will need to provide some information not currently 

required or uniformly collected. As we discussed in our briefing materials, 

states told us that they would need time to make changes such as 

preparing new guidance and training local staff on reporting modifications. 

We continue to believe that rushed implementation without adequate time 

for states to retool may lead to data quality errors. 

In addition, Labor states that its reporting change to collect data on onestop customers who use self-services is a critical first step in addressing 

prior GAO concerns. We agree that collecting this information and the 

concepts of EMILE and the common measures are consistent with the type 

GAO Response 
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Labor 

Page 58 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

of comprehensive performance management system we have 

recommended for WIA and the one-stop system. 
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 59 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

Dianne Blank, Assistant Director (202) 512-5654 

Laura Heald, Analyst-in-Charge (202) 512-8701 

Melinda Cordero, Adam Roye, and Leslie Sarapu made significant 

contributions to all phases of the effort. Carolyn Boyce made significant 

contributions in the design and administration of the surveys. In addition, 

Jessica Botsford provided legal support, Avrum Ashery and Muriel Coley 

provided graphic design assistance, and Linda Lambert and Eric Trout also 

provided key technical assistance. 

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
GAO’s Related Products 

Page 60 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act 

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. 

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.: February 23, 2004. 

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. 

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and 

Performance Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington, 

D.C.: April 18, 2003. 

Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business 

Needs, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for 

Some Workers. GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003. 

Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs 

and Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve 

Access to Other Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 

2003. 

Performance and Accountability Series. Major Management 

Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Labor. GAO-03-106. 

Washington, D.C.: January 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding 

Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274. 

Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2002. 

Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance 

Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness. 

GAO-02-275. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002. 

GAO’s Related Products 

(130389) 
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