United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Education and Labor, House of 

Representatives 

 

WORKFORCE 

INVESTMENT ACT 

One-Stop System 

Infrastructure 

Continues to Evolve, 

but Labor Should Take 

Action to Require That 

All Employment 

Service Offices Are 

Part of the System

September 2007 

GAO-07-1096 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2007

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT

One-Stop System Infrastructure 

Continues to Evolve, but Labor Should 

Take Action to Require That All 

Employment Service Offices Are Part of 

the System 

Highlights of GAO-07-1096, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Education and 

Labor, House of Representatives 

In 1998, Congress passed the 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA), 

requiring states and localities to 

bring together employment and 

training programs into a single

workforce system, the one-stop

system. States have flexibility in 

how they provide these services—

colocated within the one-stop—

through electronic linkage or 

referral. WIA did not provide funds 

to pay for the infrastructure costs,

but programs must share the costs 

of operating one-stop centers. As 

Congress considers reauthorization 

of WIA, GAO assessed (1) the 

current composition of states’ onestop systems and how this has 

changed, (2) what funds are 

primarily used to support states’

one-stop system infrastructure and

how this has changed, and (3) the 

extent to which states are 

monitoring customer satisfaction. 

Our work was primarily based on a 

50-state survey of state workforce

officials, updating work we

previously did in 2000 and 2001. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Labor step

up action to ensure that all standalone offices be affiliated with the

one-stop system. In its comments, 

Labor stated that the report would

be useful, but disagreed with the 

findings and recommendation

regarding stand-alone offices, 

asserting that all Employment

Service offices are in compliance.

Our results are based on verified 

survey data; we stand by our

findings and recommendation. 

Over the last 4 years, 19 states reported a decrease in one-stop centers, often 

citing a decrease in funds as one of the primary reasons. At the same time, 10 

states reported an increase, citing an increase in demand for services and an 

increase in on-site programs. In our 2007 survey, states reported that 13 of 

the 16 mandatory programs were available at the majority of one-stop 

centers. States reported they were providing Wagner-Peyser-funded 

Employment Service on-site at one-stop centers, but some states also 

provided services through stand-alone Employment Service offices—

facilities that focus primarily on job search and placement assistance. While 

states are required to maintain these offices within the one-stop delivery 

system, 9 states reported operating at least one stand-alone office

unaffiliated with the one-stop system. While Labor has taken steps to 

encourage states to provide all employment services through the one-stop 

system, states have made only modest progress in bringing these systems 

together. 

WIA and Employment Service were the largest funding sources for states to 

support the infrastructure—the nonpersonnel costs—of their one-stop 

centers. Of the two programs, states reported that a greater percentage of 

Employment Service funds than WIA funds were used for infrastructure 

costs. States also reported less reliance on other programs to support the 

infrastructure costs than in the past. 

Nearly all states reported that they submitted customer satisfaction data to 

Labor for program year 2005. In addition, 12 states reported that they have

established additional customer satisfaction measures beyond those 

required by Labor. 

Changes in Comprehensive One-Stop Centers for States between Program Year 2001 and 

Program Year 2006 

Source: GAO surveys of states in 2001 and 2007.

Pa.

Ore.

Nev.

Idaho

Mont.

Wyo.

Utah

Ariz. N.Mex.

Colo.

N.Dak.

S.Dak.

Nebr.

Tex.

Kans.

Okla.

Minn.

Iowa

Mo.

Ark.

La.

Ill.

Miss.

Ind.

Ky.

Tenn.

Ala.

Fla.

Ga.

S.C.

N.C.

Va.

Ohio

N.H.

Mass.

Mich. R.I.

Calif.

Wash.

Wis. N.Y.

Maine Vt.

W.Va.

Alaska

Hawaii

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

Increased number of 

one-stop centers

Decreased number of No change

one-stop centers

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1096.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Cynthia M. 

Fagnoni at (202) 512-7215 or 

fagnonic@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 5

The Numbers of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers and Satellite 

Sites Have Decreased since 2001; Most Mandatory Programs 

Were Available at One-Stop Centers in 2007 8 

States Frequently Cited WIA and the Employment Service as the 

Two Largest Funding Sources Used for Infrastructure Costs 17 

Nearly All States Submitted Customer Satisfaction Data, and Some 

States Have Established Customer Satisfaction Measures beyond 

What Is Reported to Labor 22 

Conclusions 24

Recommendations for Executive Action 25 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 28 

Appendix II Survey of States on WIA One-Stop Centers 30 

Appendix III Numbers of Local Workforce Investment Areas 

(LWIA) and Comprehensive One-Stop Centers, and 

Related Information by State, as of April 1, 2007 44 

Appendix IV Changes in Numbers of Comprehensive One-Stop 

Centers and Satellite or Affiliated Sites by State, 

2001, 2003, and 2007 46 

Appendix V Programs Typically Available at Comprehensive 

One-Stop Centers by State 48 

Page i GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix VI Distribution of Stand-alone Employment Service 

Offices in States, as of April 1, 2007, and Employment 

Service Funds Used for Infrastructure 50 

Appendix VII Number and Percentage of Physical Locations at 

Community Colleges by State, 2007 51 

Appendix VIII States’ Reporting on Comprehensive One-Stop 

Centers Collecting Additional Information on 

Customer Satisfaction, Program Year 2005 52 

Appendix IX Comments from the Department of Labor 54 

Appendix X GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 56 

Related GAO Products 57 

Tables 

Table 1: WIA’s Mandatory Programs, Related Federal Agencies, and 

Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriation 7 

Table 2: Number of States Reporting Services for Mandatory 

Programs Available On-site, through Electronic Linkage, or 

by Referral in the Majority of Comprehensive One-Stop 

Centers, 2001 and 2007 13 

Table 3: Programs Funding One-Stop Center Infrastructure Costs 21 

Table 4: States with Additional Customer Satisfaction Measures for 

Job Seekers and Participating Employers, Program Year 

2005 22 

Page ii GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Figures 

Figure 1: Number of States and Percentage of WIA and 

Employment Service Funds Used for Infrastructure Costs 4 

Figure 2: Changes in the Number of Comprehensive One-Stop

Centers for Each State, Program Year 2001 and April 1, 

2007 10

Figure 3: Status of Stand-alone Employment Service Offices in the 

United States, April 1, 2007 15 

Figure 4: States Reported That the Majority of Physical Locations 

in One-Stop Delivery Systems Were Leased 16 

Figure 5: Top Funding Sources Used to Support Infrastructure 

Costs 18

Figure 6: Primary Funding Source Used by States to Support the 

Infrastructure of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers 19 

Figure 7: Number of States and Percentage of WIA and 

Employment Service Funds Used for Infrastructure Costs 20 

Figure 8: Number of States and Percentage of One-Stop Centers 

That Collect Additional Information on Customer

Satisfaction, Program Year 2005 24 

Figure 9: Programs Available On-site in a Typical Comprehensive 

One-Stop Center by State 48 

Page iii GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Abbreviations 

ES Employment Service 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

JTPA Job Training Partnership Act 

LWIA local workforce investment area 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

WIA Workforce Investment Act 

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

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

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page iv GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

September 4, 2007 

The Honorable George Miller 

Chairman 

Committee on Education and Labor

House of Representatives 

The Honorable George Miller 

Chairman 

Committee on Education and Labor

House of Representatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), requiring 

states and localities to bring together employment and training programs 

into a single comprehensive workforce system, called the one-stop system. 

Sixteen federally funded workforce development programs are required to

provide their services through the one-stop system, but states have 

considerable flexibility in how they deliver services. Programs, for 

example, may be colocated within the one-stop center, electronically 

linked, or linked through referrals. In fiscal year 2006, Congress 

appropriated roughly $15 billion for the 16 mandatory programs, including 

about $3 billion for WIA. WIA legislation did not provide separate funds to 

pay for the infrastructure costs, leaving it up to the mandatory partners to 

make their own cost-sharing arrangements. In 2000, we conducted a 50-

state survey that examined the different arrangements one-stop centers 

were using to provide both mandated and optional programs and the 

funding sources used by one-stop centers to pay their infrastructure costs. 

We last updated this work in 2001. However, little is known about the 

current structure of one-stop centers—the numbers of centers or the 

services provided at them—or the infrastructure costs for the one-stop 

centers currently operating across the 50 states and how these have

changed over time. 

In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), requiring 

states and localities to bring together employment and training programs 

into a single comprehensive workforce system, called the one-stop system. 

Sixteen federally funded workforce development programs are required to

provide their services through the one-stop system, but states have 

considerable flexibility in how they deliver services. Programs, for 

example, may be colocated within the one-stop center, electronically 

linked, or linked through referrals. In fiscal year 2006, Congress 

appropriated roughly $15 billion for the 16 mandatory programs, including 

about $3 billion for WIA. WIA legislation did not provide separate funds to 

pay for the infrastructure costs, leaving it up to the mandatory partners to 

make their own cost-sharing arrangements. In 2000, we conducted a 50-

state survey that examined the different arrangements one-stop centers 

were using to provide both mandated and optional programs and the 

funding sources used by one-stop centers to pay their infrastructure costs. 

We last updated this work in 2001. However, little is known about the 

current structure of one-stop centers—the numbers of centers or the 

services provided at them—or the infrastructure costs for the one-stop 

centers currently operating across the 50 states and how these have

changed over time. 

As Congress considers reauthorization of WIA, you asked us to gather 

information about how the one-stop delivery system has evolved since 

WIA was enacted. Specifically, we assessed (1) the current composition of 

states’ one-stop systems and how this has changed over time, (2) what 

funds are primarily used to support states’ one-stop system infrastructure 

and how this has changed over time, and (3) the extent to which states are

monitoring customer satisfaction with service delivery at one-stop centers. 

As Congress considers reauthorization of WIA, you asked us to gather 

information about how the one-stop delivery system has evolved since 

WIA was enacted. Specifically, we assessed (1) the current composition of 

states’ one-stop systems and how this has changed over time, (2) what 

funds are primarily used to support states’ one-stop system infrastructure 

and how this has changed over time, and (3) the extent to which states are

monitoring customer satisfaction with service delivery at one-stop centers. 

To gather information on how state and local one-stop delivery systems 

established under WIA deliver employment and training services to job 

seekers and employers, we conducted a survey of state workforce officials 

To gather information on how state and local one-stop delivery systems 

established under WIA deliver employment and training services to job 

seekers and employers, we conducted a survey of state workforce officials 

Page 1 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
in 50 states. The survey included questions on states’ one-stop delivery

systems related to the numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers and 

satellite or affiliated sites, program services, and sources of funds to pay 

infrastructure costs for comprehensive one-stop centers. We also obtained 

cost data for program year 2005. The questionnaire was e-mailed to state 

officials in April, 2007, and we received surveys from all 50 states, 

although some states did not answer every question. We did not survey the 

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. territories. Our survey 

asked states to provide information about their one-stop systems as of 

April 1, 2007. In order to analyze trends in the one-stop delivery system, we 

compared the 2007 survey data with data from 2000 and 2001.1

 To assess 

the reliability of certain data obtained from the survey, we independently

researched the information from other publicly available sources. In 

addition to our survey, we conducted a literature review to identify 

relevant findings from other studies—including those sponsored by the 

Department of Labor (Labor)—that examined one-stop delivery systems. 

(App. I contains a more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology. 

App. II contains a copy of the questionnaire.) We conducted our work 

between April 2007 and August 2007 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

From 2001 to 2007, the total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in

the 50 states declined by 7 percent. Over the past 4 years, 19 states 

reported a decrease in one-stop centers, frequently identifying a decrease

in funds as one of the primary reasons. In contrast, 10 states reported an 

increase, citing, among other reasons, an increase in demand for services 

and an increase in the number of programs provided on-site. From 2001 to

2007, the number of satellite or affiliated sites decreased by about 13 

percent. However, over the most recent 4 years, the number of satellite or 

affiliated sites has increased slightly. In our 2007 survey, states reported 

that 13 of the 16 mandatory programs required under WIA were available

at the majority of one-stop centers. States reported that three key 

mandatory programs—WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and the 

Employment Service (ES)—continued to be available on-site at the 

majority of the one-stop centers. Also, more states reported that some 

Results in Brief 

 1

 Findings from these surveys were reported in the following GAO reports: GAO,Workforce 

Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate Services for TANF Clients,

but Better Information Needed on Effective Approaches, GAO-02-696 (Washington, D.C.: 

July 3, 2002), and Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration

of TANF Services, GAO/T-HEHS-00-145 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000). 

Page 2 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
programs were available at one-stop centers electronically or through 

referral than in 2001. While states reported providing Wagner-Peyserfunded Employment Service on-site at one-stop centers, some states also 

provided services through stand-alone Employment Service facilities—

offices that focus primarily on job assistance funded by the Employment 

Service. Nine states reported having one or more stand-alone Employment

Service offices that were not affiliated with the one-stop system, a 

condition that is prohibited by the Wagner-Peyser Act and its 

implementing regulations. This represents a modest decrease from figures 

Labor reported in 2006 when 13 states operated parallel systems 

disconnected from the local one-stop centers to a substantial degree. Since 

the establishment of the one-stop system, some have expressed concern 

that state-owned buildings may be reducing states’ flexibility to optimize 

their physical space. We found, however, that most states reported that 

they owned relatively few buildings, leasing or renting about two-thirds of 

the physical locations for their one-stop systems. Approximately 6 percent 

of all buildings in the one-stop delivery system were located at community 

colleges; 31 states contained such buildings. 

WIA and the Employment Service were the largest funding sources states 

used to support the infrastructure—the nonpersonnel costs—of their 

comprehensive one-stop centers. For program year 2005, 42 states 

identified WIA and Employment Service as the primary funding sources—

of these, 23 states identified WIA as the primary funding source and 19 

states reported it was the Employment Service. Fewer states were able to

estimate the percentage of their WIA and Employment Service allotments 

that were used to support one-stop infrastructure. In general, states 

reported that a greater percentage of Employment Service funds than WIA 

funds were used for infrastructure costs. (See fig. 1.) 

Page 3 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Figure 1: Number of States and Percentage of WIA and Employment Service Funds 

Used for Infrastructure Costs 

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 or more

Number of states

Percentage of funds

Source: GAO survey of 50 states.

WIA

ES

21

12

4

17

2

7

2

5

States also reported less reliance on other programs to support the 

infrastructure costs than in the past. For example, the number of states 

that reported using Vocational Rehabilitation funds declined from 37 

states to 24 states. However, some states have increased their reliance on

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds for infrastructure. 

For program year 2005, 16 states reported that TANF was one of the three 

largest sources for supporting one-stop infrastructure costs, including 6 of

the 9 states with single statewide local workforce investment areas. By 

contrast, 12 states reported that TANF was one of the three largest funding 

sources in fiscal year 2000. 

Nearly all states reported that they submitted customer satisfaction data to 

Labor for program year 2005, as required under WIA. Since Labor adopted 

the common measures in 2005, it has granted waivers to states exempting 

them from reporting participant and employer customer satisfaction. 

Labor officials reported that 20 states have obtained such waivers and will 

be exempt from reporting customer satisfaction data. Some states 

reported collecting additional information on customer satisfaction 

Page 4 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
beyond what is required by Labor. Twelve states reported that they have 

established such additional measures, including information on waiting 

time for assistance, helpfulness of the services received, and extent to 

which services met customer expectations. Finally, states reported that 

some comprehensive one-stop centers also collect information on 

customer satisfaction, but the extent to which this is done varies widely. 

We recommend that the Secretary of Labor step up action to ensure 

compliance with the Wagner-Peyser Act and its implementing regulations 

by requiring that all stand-alone offices be affiliated or linked in some way, 

either electronically or through direct referral, with the one-stop system. 

Such actions may include additional technical assistance and working with 

states to establish progress benchmarks with the understanding that 

failure to meet the benchmarks may result in further action up to and 

including a loss of grant funding. 

We received written comments on a draft of this report from the 

Department of Labor. Labor commented that the report contained 

significant information and that it would be useful as Congress considers 

reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. However, the agency

disagreed with our findings and recommendation regarding unaffiliated 

stand-alone Employment Service offices. Labor believes that all states are

in compliance with the requirement that all Employment Service offices be 

affiliated with the one-stop system. Labor suggests that because GAO 

relied on a survey of states to collect the information, our data are most 

likely the result of respondents misunderstanding the survey questions. We 

developed and pretested the survey instrument with state WIA 

administrators from 5 states to ensure that it was easily understandable, 

unambiguous, and unbiased. Furthermore, officials’ responses to other 

questions confirmed their understanding, and as part of our quality 

control, we followed up with state officials when their responses were 

ambiguous. We believe that respondents understood our questions and 

that our survey results are accurate. We, therefore, stand by our findings 

and recommendation. The agency’s written comments are reprinted in 

appendix X.

The Workforce Investment Act created a new, comprehensive workforce 

investment system designed to change the way employment and training 

services are delivered. When WIA was enacted, in 1998, it replaced the Job

Training Partnership Act (JTPA) with three new programs—Adult, 

Dislocated Worker, and Youth—that allow for a broader range of services

to the general public, no longer using income to determine eligibility for all 

Background 

Page 5 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
program services. In addition to establishing these three new programs, 

WIA requires that services for these programs, along with those of a 

number of other employment and training programs, including the 

Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service, be provided through a single 

service delivery system—the one-stop system.2

 States were required to 

implement these changes by July 1, 2000. Sixteen categories of programs, 

receiving an estimated $15 billion from four separate federal agencies, 

must provide services through the system. (See table 1.) 

 2

 As part of the one-stop service delivery system, the Employment Service focuses on

providing a variety of employment-related labor exchange services including job search

assistance, job referral, and placement assistance for job seekers, reemployment services

to unemployment insurance claimants, and recruitment services to employers with job 

openings.

Page 6 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Table 1: WIA’s Mandatory Programs, Related Federal Agencies, and Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriation

(Dollars in millions) 

Federal agency Mandatory programs 

Fiscal year 2006 

appropriation

WIA Adult $864

WIA Dislocated Worker 1,472

WIA Youth 941

Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser) 850

Trade adjustment assistance programs 966

Veterans’ employment and training programs 224

Unemployment Insurance 2,508

Job Corps 1,564

Senior Community Service Employment Program 432

Employment and training for migrant and seasonal farm workers 80

Department of Labor 

Employment and training for Native Americans 54

Vocational Rehabilitation Program 2,720

Adult Education and Literacy 580

Department of Education 

Vocational Education (Perkins Act) 1,296

Department of Health and Human 

Services 

Community Services Block Grant 

630

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) 

HUD-administered employment and training

85a

Total $15,266

Source: Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development. 

Note: Although WIA required 17 mandatory programs to participate in the one-stop system, the 

Welfare-to-Work program has been discontinued, reducing the total to include 16 mandatory 

programs. 

a

Estimated appropriation 

Each state must have one or more designated local workforce investment 

areas, and as of April 2007, the 50 states reported having 563 local 

workforce investment areas. Nine states reported having the entire state 

as its workforce investment area, and California reported having the most 

local workforce investment areas (50). (See app. III for additional data 

about the numbers of local workforce investment areas and 

comprehensive one-stop centers, and related information.) Each local area

must have at least one comprehensive one-stop center where core services

Page 7 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
for all mandatory programs are accessible.3

 WIA allows flexibility in the 

way these mandatory program partners provide services through the onestop system, allowing colocation, electronic linkages, or referrals. While 

WIA requires these mandatory partners to participate, it does not provide 

additional funds to operate one-stop systems and support one-stop 

partnerships. As a result, mandatory partners are expected to share the 

costs of developing and operating one-stop centers. In addition to 

mandatory partners, one-stop centers have the flexibility to include other 

optional partners, such as TANF or the Food Stamp Employment and 

Training program, in the one-stop system to better meet specific state and

local workforce development needs.4 Services may also be offered at 

satellite or affiliated sites—designated locations that provide access to at 

least one employment and training program. About $3.3 billion was 

appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for the three WIA programs—Adult, 

Dislocated Worker, and Youth. 

From 2001 to 2007, the total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in

the 50 states declined by 7 percent, and during the same period, the total 

number of satellite or affiliated sites decreased by 13 percent. Since 2003, 

19 states reported a decline in the number of comprehensive one-stop 

centers and frequently identified a decrease in funds as one of the primary 

reasons. In our 2007 survey, states reported that 13 of the 16 mandatory 

programs required under WIA were available at the majority of 

comprehensive one-stop centers. States reported that three key mandatory 

programs—WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and the Employment 

Service—continued to be available on-site at the majority of the one-stop 

centers. More states also reported that some programs were available at 

one-stop centers electronically or through referral than in 2001. While 

states reported they were providing Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment

Service on-site at one-stop centers, some states also provided services 

through stand-alone Employment Service facilities—offices that focus 

primarily on assistance funded by the Employment Service. Eighteen 

The Numbers of 

Comprehensive OneStop Centers and 

Satellite Sites Have 

Decreased since 2001; 

Most Mandatory 

Programs Were 

Available at One-Stop 

Centers in 2007 

 3

 For the purposes of this report, we defined a comprehensive one-stop center as a 

designated location where multiple employment and training programs provide access to 

services for job seekers and employers.

4

 TANF, a block grant to states, provides temporary assistance to needy families. In general, 

able-bodied TANF recipients, who receive cash assistance, must participate in work or

work-related activities, and there is a 5-year lifetime limit on federal assistance. Beyond

work, work-related activities include education and training, job search, and participation 

in community service. 

Page 8 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
states reported operating one or more stand-alone Employment Service 

offices; 9 of these states reported having at least one unaffiliated standalone office outside the one-stop delivery system. States reported that the 

majority of the physical locations—the buildings that contain the one-stop

delivery system—were leased or rented in 2007. Only 10 percent were 

owned by the state. 

The Number of 

Comprehensive One-Stop 

Centers Has Declined 7 

Percent since Program 

Year 2001 

The total number of comprehensive one-stop centers has declined since 

we last reviewed it in 2001. Over the 6-year period, the number of one-stop 

centers across the 50 states has declined from 1,756 in 2001 to 1,637 in 

2007. (See fig. 2.) Over the last 4 years, 19 states reported a decrease in 

one-stop centers, frequently identifying a decrease in funds as one of the 

primary reasons. In contrast, 10 states reported an increase during this 

period, citing, among other reasons, an increase in demand for services 

and an increase in the number of on-site partners. 

Page 9 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Figure 2: Changes in the Number of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers for Each State, Program Year 2001 and April 1, 2007 

Pa.

Ore.

Nev.

Idaho

Mont.

Wyo.

Utah

Ariz.

N.Mex.

Colo.

N.Dak.

S.Dak.

Nebr.

Tex.

Kans.

Okla.

Minn.

Iowa

Mo.

Ark.

La.

Ill.

Miss.

Ind.

Ky.

Tenn.

Ala.

Fla.

Ga.

S.C.

N.C.

Va.

Ohio

N.H.

Mass.

R.I. Mich.

Calif.

Wash.

Wis. N.Y.

Maine

Vt.

W.Va.

Alaska

Hawaii

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

Source: GAO surveys of states in 2001 and 2007.

Increased number of 

one-stop centers

No change

Decreased number of 

one-stop centers

Changes in the number of comprehensive one-stop centers in the last 4 

years were generally relatively small. Thirty-five states reported little (less 

than 10 percent) or no change in the total number of comprehensive onestop centers. However, some states reported large changes, including 5 

states that reported more than a 25 percent reduction in the number of 

one-stop centers. Connecticut, for example, reported more than a 35

percent decrease in one-stop centers, from 11 to 7 centers, a change that 

state officials attributed to a reduction in funding that caused one-stop 

centers to be closed or redesignated as satellite sites. Conversely, 4 states

reported increases of 25 percent or more in the number of one-stop 

centers. For example, Montana reported a seven-fold increase, from 2 to 

14 one-stop centers, as part of a statewide restructuring of its one-stop 

delivery system that involved converting former satellite and affiliated 

Page 10 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
sites into comprehensive one-stop centers. (See app. IV for detailed 

information about the numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers and 

satellite or affiliated sites and changes over time.) 

From 2001 to 2007, the total number of satellite or affiliated sites across 

the 50 states declined by 13 percent, from 2,032 to 1,764. However, the 

number of satellite sites has increased slightly in the last 4 years. Between 

2003 and 2007, 17 states reported increasing the number of satellite sites.

Illinois, for example, reported a 45 percent increase in satellite sites (from 

53 to 77) to meet the demand in underserved areas and to respond to 

specific large dislocation events. In contrast, 17 states reported a decline 

in the number of satellite sites. For example, in Florida, the number 

decreased by 56 percent—from 39 to 17—because of ongoing funding cuts. 

In other states, however, the decrease in the number of satellite sites was 

often the result of a change in the states’ official designation of satellite 

and affiliated sites. Fifteen states reported no change in the number of 

satellite sites since 2003. (See app. IV for detailed information about the 

numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers and satellite or affiliated sites 

and changes over time.) 

The use of satellite sites in rural areas has changed in recent years, 

according to a 2005 study sponsored by Labor.5

 In the five localities that 

the researchers reviewed, the rural local workforce investment areas were 

focusing more on developing comprehensive one-stop centers than on 

creating multiple, dispersed satellite or affiliated sites. Researchers 

attributed the move away from satellite sites to comprehensive centers to 

a number of reasons, including the increase in the availability of electronic 

access to core services, the greater ease of supervising colocated staff, the 

increased visibility of comprehensive centers, and the fact that affiliated 

sites often had limited hours that made them less attractive.

In 2007, states reported that 13 of the 16 mandatory programs required 

under WIA were available at the majority of comprehensive one-stop 

centers. States reported that three key mandatory programs—WIA Adult, 

WIA Dislocated Worker, and the Employment Service—continued to be 

The Number of Satellite or 

Affiliated Sites Has 

Decreased since 2001 but 

Has Risen Slightly since 

2003 

More States Reported That 

Mandatory Program 

Services Were Available at 

One-Stop Centers 

 5

 Kate Dunham, Annelies Goger, Jennifer Henderson-Frakes, and Nichole Tucker, 

Workforce Development in Rural Areas: Changes in Access, Service Delivery and 

Partnerships, Social Policy Research Associates, Oakland, California, June 30, 2005. 

Page 11 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
available on-site at the majority of the one-stop centers. More states also 

reported that some programs’ services were available at one-stop centers 

electronically or through referral. These programs included Job Corps, 

Senior Community Service Employment, and Adult Education and 

Literacy. (See table 2.) In addition, states reported that services for an 

optional program, TANF, were available in one-stop centers in more states 

in 2007 than in 2001. Sixteen states reported that TANF was available in 

the majority of one-stop centers in 2001, whereas 30 states reported that 

TANF was available at the typical comprehensive one-stop center in 2007.6

(See app. V for additional information about program services provided at 

a typical one-stop center across all 50 states.) 

 6

 A different survey question was used in 2001 than in 2007. The 2001 survey asked states to 

report the number of comprehensive one-stop centers that offered TANF on-site at least 

part-time, and we used this information to calculate how many had program services 

available in the majority of one-stop centers. The 2007 survey asked states to identify which 

programs were available at a typical one-stop center in the state. 

Page 12 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Table 2: Number of States Reporting Services for Mandatory Programs Available On-site, through Electronic Linkage, or by

Referral in the Majority of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers, 2001 and 2007 

Number of states, 2001 Number of states, 2007 

Programs On-site

Through electronic

linkage or referral On-site

Through electronic

linkage or referral

Labor

WIA Adult 50 0 48a0

WIA Dislocated Worker 49b0 47a1

WIA Youth 46a2 42c4

Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser) 49b0 48a0

Veterans E&T N/A N/A 46c1

DVOPS 42b5 N/A N/A

LVER 43b3 N/A N/A

Trade Adjustment Assistance 43b5 43a5

Unemployment Insurance 34a13 31c15

Senior Community Service Employment Program 30d5 19d22

Job Corps 21e12 11c33

Employment and Training for Migrant and Seasonal Farm 

Workers 24c

9 22d19

Education 

Vocational Rehabilitation 39 4 29c16

Adult Education and Literacy 26d12 22c22

N/A = Not applicable 

Sources: GAO surveys of states in 2001 and 2007. 

Notes: (1) States were asked to report on availability of Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program 

Specialists (DVOPS) and Local Veterans’ Employment Representative (LVER) programs in 2001 

rather than Veterans’ E&T. (2) GAO received inadequate survey response rates in 2001 for four

programs (Community Service Block Grants, Housing and Urban Development Employment and 

Training, Employment and Training for Native Americans, and Vocational Education) to allow 

comparison. (3) Two states—California and New Mexico—did not respond to the question on 

availability of any program services at one-stop centers in 2007. 

a

Two states did not respond to the question. 

b

One state did not respond to the question. 

c

Three states did not respond to the question. 

d

Four states did not respond to the question. 

e

Five states did not respond to the question. 

While states reported they were providing Wagner-Peyser-funded 

Employment Service on-site at one-stop centers, some states also provided

services through stand-alone Employment Service facilities—offices that 

Page 13 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
focus primarily on job search and placement assistance. Overall, 18 states

reported in our 2007 survey that they had at least one stand-alone 

Employment Service office. Nine states reported that at least one of these 

stand-alone offices were unaffiliated and not part of the one-stop delivery 

system. Six of these states reported that they operated all of their standalone Employment Service offices as unaffiliated sites completely outside 

the one-stop system. This represents a modest decrease from the figures 

Labor reported in 2006, when 19 states overall were identified as having at 

least one stand-alone Employment Service office, 13 of which were 

operating parallel systems disconnected from the local one-stop centers to

a substantial degree. (See fig. 3.) (See app. VI for additional information 

about stand-alone employment service offices.) 

The Wagner-Peyser Act requires that all labor exchange services be 

provided as part of the one-stop delivery system. 7 Labor’s implementing 

regulations provide that Employment Service offices may not exist outside 

the one-stop delivery system, but allow stand-alone Employment Service 

offices to operate as affiliated sites or as electronically or technologically

linked access points. Labor has expressed concern that these stand-alone 

Employment Service offices cause confusion for individuals and 

employers and promote duplication of effort. While Labor has the option 

to withhold funding, it has not done so, but has taken other steps to 

encourage states to provide all employment services through the one-stop 

system. These actions include providing policy guidance, monitoring the 

status of states’ workforce integration, conducting forums, and providing 

technical assistance to states in support of integration of stand-alone 

offices into one-stop centers. In addition, Labor reports that it is requiring 

states to include information on their efforts to improve one-stop 

coordination and integration in their WIA state plan updates this year. 

And Labor has proposed legislative initiatives and regulatory changes—

that currently await reauthorization—designed to better integrate services

at the one-stop. Despite the range of Labor’s efforts, states have made only 

modest progress in bringing these systems together. 

 7

 29 U.S.C.§49f(e). 

Page 14 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Figure 3: Status of Stand-alone Employment Service Offices in the United States, April 1, 2007 

Pa.

Ore.

Nev.

Idaho

Mont.

Wyo.

Utah

Ariz.

N.Mex.

Colo.

N.Dak.

S.Dak.

Nebr.

Tex.

Kans.

Okla.

Minn.

Iowa

Mo.

Ark.

La.

Ill.

Miss.

Ind.

Ky.

Tenn.

Ala.

Fla.

Ga.

S.C.

N.C.

Va.

Ohio

N.H.

Mass.

R.I. Mich.

Calif.

Wash.

Wis. N.Y.

Maine

Vt.

W.Va.

Alaska

Hawaii

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

Source: GAO survey of 50 states.

States with all stand-alone 

ES offices affiliated with the system

States with stand-alone ES offices both 

affiliated and unaffiliated with the system

States without 

stand-alone ES offices

States with all stand-alone ES offices

unaffiliated with the system

The Majority of Physical 

Locations in the One-Stop 

Delivery System Were 

Leased or Rented 

Since the establishment of the one-stop system, some have expressed 

concern that state-owned buildings may be reducing states’ flexibility to 

optimize their physical space. We found, however, that most states 

reported that they owned relatively few buildings, leasing or renting about 

two-thirds of the physical locations for their one-stop systems. Overall, 

states reported that the one-stop delivery system comprised nearly 3,400

physical locations. Of the overall total, states reported that about 65 

percent of the buildings were leased or rented, and only 10 percent were 

state-owned. (See fig. 4.)

Page 15 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Figure 4: States Reported That the Majority of Physical Locations in One-Stop 

Delivery Systems Were Leased

13%

Leased or rented

State-owned

Other (e.g., free)

Source: GAO survey of 50 states.

65%

Not reported

10%

11%

Note: Numbers may not total 100 because of rounding. 

Most states (37) reported that they owned less than 20 percent of the 

buildings used to operate the one-stop system,8

 and 10 of these states 

reported that they did not own any of the physical locations. In contrast, 4 

states reported that over half of the buildings used to operate the one-stop

delivery systems were state-owned. Two states also reported that the 

majority of the buildings were neither leased nor owned but otherwise 

provided, including facilities that were provided for free. 

States generally reported that a small percentage of buildings in their onestop delivery system were located on the campuses of community 

colleges. In our survey, 31 states reported having at least one facility 

located on a community college campus, and these states reported a total

of 186 physical locations—approximately 6 percent—on campus. North 

Carolina reported the highest percentage of facilities located on

community college campuses at 25 percent, and with 31 physical locations, 

represented 17 percent of the total number. (See app. VII for more 

 8

 One state did not provide data on the number of physical locations that were state-owned. 

Page 16 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
information about the numbers of physical locations on the campuses of 

community colleges.) 

While most states relied heavily on one or two programs to support onestop infrastructure costs, some states dispersed the costs among 

numerous programs. WIA and the Employment Service were the two 

programs most often identified as funding sources used for 

infrastructure—the nonpersonnel costs—of operating comprehensive onestop centers. In our 2007 survey, most states reported that WIA and the 

Employment Service were the largest contributors toward infrastructure 

costs for program year 2005. (See fig. 5.) Of the 48 states that were able to

report on infrastructure funding for comprehensive one-stop centers, 23 

states identified WIA as the top funding source and 19 states reported that

Employment Service funds were the largest funding source. Three states 

reported that TANF funds were the largest funding source. (See fig. 6.) The 

choices states made regarding infrastructure funding appear to be 

independent of state size, population density, or the number of 

comprehensive one-stop centers. 

States Frequently 

Cited WIA and the 

Employment Service 

as the Two Largest 

Funding Sources 

Used for 

Infrastructure Costs 

Page 17 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Figure 5: Top Funding Sources Used to Support Infrastructure Costs 

0

5

10

15

20

25

WIA state funds

Unenployment

 Insurance

Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families

Employment

Service

WIA

Number of states

Source: GAO survey of 50 states.

Program

23

19

3

2

1

Note: Two states did not respond to the question on the funding sources that contributed the most to 

financing one-stop centers. 

Page 18 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Figure 6: Primary Funding Source Used by States to Support the Infrastructure of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers 

Source: GAO survey of 50 states.

ES

WIA

Other programs, plus

two states did not report

TANF

Pa.

Ore.

Nev.

Idaho

Mont.

Wyo.

Utah

Ariz.

N.Mex.

Colo.

N.Dak.

S.Dak.

Nebr.

Tex.

Kans.

Okla.

Minn.

Iowa

Mo.

Ark.

La.

Ill.

Miss.

Ind.

Ky.

Tenn.

Ala.

Fla.

Ga.

S.C.

N.C.

Va.

Ohio

N.H.

Mass.

R.I. Mich.

Calif.

Wash.

Wis. N.Y.

Maine

Vt.

W.Va.

Alaska

Hawaii

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

While WIA and the Employment Service were the primary funding sources 

used to support infrastructure costs in program year 2005, states varied in

their ability to report more detailed information on infrastructure costs in 

our survey. Of the states that could report, more states reported that a

greater percentage of their Employment Service funds than WIA funds 

were used to finance the infrastructure of the one-stop comprehensive 

centers. (See fig. 7.) Specifically, of the 41 states that provided estimates 

for the percentage of their Employment Service allotment used for 

infrastructure costs, 29 reported using more than 10 percent. Conversely, 

of the 29 states that provided estimates for the percentage of WIA funds, 

21 states reported using 10 percent or less. (See app. VIII for state-reported 

data on the percentage of WIA and Employment Service allocations used 

for infrastructure costs during program year 2005.) 

Page 19 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Figure 7: Number of States and Percentage of WIA and Employment Service Funds 

Used for Infrastructure Costs 

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 or more

Number of states

Percentage of funds

Source: GAO survey of 50 states.

WIA

ES

21

12

4

17

2

7

2

5

Moreover, for program year 2005, states reported less reliance on other 

programs for funding the one-stop infrastructure costs than in the past. 

(See table 3.) For example, over a 5-year period, the number of states that 

reported using Vocational Rehabilitation program funds for infrastructure 

costs declined from 37 to 24. While the number of states relying on TANF 

funds has declined, more states identified it as one of the three largest 

funding sources for infrastructure costs for program year 2005 than 

previously reported. Sixteen states reported that TANF was one of the 

three largest contributors to financing one-stop centers, including 6 of the 

9 states with single statewide workforce investment areas. In fiscal year 

2000, 12 states reported that TANF was one of the three largest funding 

sources. 

Page 20 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Table 3: Programs Funding One-Stop Center Infrastructure Costs 

Program 

Number of states using

program funds

for infrastructure, 

fiscal year 2000

Number of states using

program funds for

infrastructure, 

fiscal year 2001 

Number of states using

program funds

for infrastructure, 

program year 2005

Labor

WIA Title I/JTPA 50 50 50

Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser) 49 50 50

Veterans’ E&T Program 43 43 41

NAFTAa and Trade Adjustment Assistance 39 41 30

Unemployment Insurance 39 39 34

Welfare-to-Work Grants 39 38 N/A

One-Stop Implementation Grants 37 N/A N/A

Job Corps 20 24 11

Education 

Vocational Rehabilitation 37 37 24

Adult Education and Literacy 29 29 15

Vocational Education 24 19 N/A

Other

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 33 36 27

Community Colleges N/A N/A 11

State Funds N/A 31 24

N/A = Not applicable. 

Sources: GAO surveys of states in 2000, 2001, and 2007. 

a

North American Free Trade Agreement. 

Regarding the stand-alone offices, we asked states to provide estimates of 

their state’s total Employment Service allotment used to support the 

infrastructure of these offices.9

 Among the 6 states that provided this 

information, they reported that the amount ranged from 0 to 14 percent,

and the overall average was approximately 5 percent. However, the state 

with the most stand-alone Employment Service offices, Iowa, reported 

that it did not use any of its Employment Service allotment to support the 

 9

 For the purposes of this report, we defined infrastructure costs as the nonpersonnel costs

necessary for the general operation of a one-stop center, including the rental costs of the

facilities, costs of utilities and maintenance, and equipment (including adaptive technology

for individuals with disabilities). 

Page 21 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
infrastructure of these offices. Instead, Iowa financed the infrastructure 

costs of its 30 stand-alone offices with state general funds. 

Nearly all states submitted customer satisfaction data for both job seekers 

and employers to Labor for program year 2005, as required under WIA.10 In 

addition, 12 states reported that they had established measures for 

customer satisfaction beyond what is required. For example, some states 

collected information on waiting time for assistance, helpfulness of the 

services received, and extent to which services met customer 

expectations. Of these 12 states, 10 established additional customer 

satisfaction measures for both job seekers and participating employers, 

and 2 states established additional customer satisfaction measures just for 

job seekers. (See table 4.) 

Table 4: States with Additional Customer Satisfaction Measures for Job Seekers 

and Participating Employers, Program Year 2005 

Nearly All States 

Submitted Customer 

Satisfaction Data, and 

Some States Have 

Established Customer 

Satisfaction Measures 

beyond What Is 

Reported to Labor 

Additional customer satisfaction measures 

State For job seekers For participating employers 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Maine 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire 

New York 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Washington 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Source: GAO survey of 50 states. 

 10 The 2 states (Mississippi and Pennsylvania) that did not submit customer satisfaction 

data were granted waivers exempting them from the requirement to report this 

information. 

Page 22 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Since 2005, when Labor moved to using common measures, Labor has 

granted, upon request, waivers to states exempting them from reporting on 

participant and employer customer satisfaction. As of August, 2007, Labor 

reported that 20 states, including the District of Columbia, have such 

waivers, exempting them from reporting customer satisfaction data.11 In 

addition, all states report on employment-related outcomes for the 

common performance measures—three for adults and three for youth—

and are required to negotiate with Labor separate goals and report on 

outcomes for both the WIA Adult and WIA Dislocated Worker programs.12

According to state officials, comprehensive one-stop centers also collect 

customer satisfaction data not required by the state, but the extent to 

which one-stop centers are collecting information varies considerably. 

Eight states reported that all of their comprehensive one-stop centers 

collected additional information on customer satisfaction, and 9 more 

states reported that the majority of their one-stop centers collected 

additional information. Conversely, 7 states reported that none of their 

one-stop centers collected any additional information from job seekers or

participating employers. (See fig. 8.) (See app. IX for states’ reporting on 

the extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on 

customer satisfaction.) 

 11 Labor reports the following states have waivers: Colorado, District of Columbia, Idaho,

Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New York, North

Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West

Virginia.

12 The three common performance measures for adults are entered employment, 

employment retention, and average earnings; the three common performance measures for 

youth are placement in employment or education, attainment of a degree or certificate, and 

literacy and numeracy gains. 

Page 23 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Figure 8: Number of States and Percentage of One-Stop Centers That Collect 

Additional Information on Customer Satisfaction, Program Year 2005

0

3

6

9

12

15

No one-stops

Some one-stops

(50-1)

Majority of 

one-stops

(99-51)

All one-stops

(100)

Number of states

Source: GAO survey of 50 states.

Percent of one-stop centers

8

9

14

7

Note: The remaining 12 states did not know whether or not the one-stop centers were collecting 

additional information on customer satisfaction. 

Our study presents a snapshot in time of the evolving structure of the onestop system in each of the 50 states. Because WIA provided states and 

localities with flexibility in deciding how to implement the one-stop 

system, the picture continues to evolve as systems are tailored to meet 

ever changing local needs. The results of our survey suggest that states 

and localities have developed a variety of different approaches to deliver

services. However, nine states reported operating at least one stand-alone 

Employment Service office outside the one-stop delivery system, a 

situation prohibited by the Wagner-Peyser Act and its implementing 

Conclusions 

Page 24 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
regulations. Although the services provided may be useful, because these 

offices are not linked to the one-stop system in any way—either 

electronically or by referral, program participants may not be receiving the 

complete range of services they need to gain employment or other jobrelated assistance. It may also be the case that these separate systems 

result in duplication of effort and inefficient use of resources. We support 

Labor’s steps thus far to integrate Wagner-Peyser-funded employment 

services into the one-stop system, but they have resulted in only modest 

improvement. Without further integration, these separate stand-alone 

offices may continue to create confusion for clients, result in duplication 

of effort, and undermine the key goal of WIA—to consolidate the nation’s 

workforce development system. 

We recommend that the Secretary of Labor step up action to ensure 

compliance with the Wagner-Peyser Act and its implementing regulations 

by requiring that all stand-alone offices be affiliated or linked in some way, 

either electronically or through direct referral, with the one-stop system. 

Such actions may include additional technical assistance and working with 

states to establish progress benchmarks with the understanding that 

failure to meet the benchmarks may result in further action up to and 

including a loss of grant funding. 

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

commented that the report provides significant information that will be 

useful to Congress in reauthorizing WIA, but the department disagreed 

with some of the report’s findings, the recommendation, and the report’s 

title. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Specifically, Labor commented that it does not believe that the report’s 

findings regarding the presence of unaffiliated stand-alone Employment 

Service offices and the recommendation to step up action to bring them 

into compliance are sound. Labor comments that it is not aware of any 

specific instance of an unaffiliated, stand-alone Employment Service 

office. Labor states that requirements to become affiliated are broad and 

easy to meet and, as a result, believes that unaffiliated offices do not exist.

Labor suggests that because we rely on a survey of states to collect the 

Page 25 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
information, the data are most likely the result of a misunderstanding on 

the part of survey respondents. In conducting our work, we followed 

generally accepted government auditing standards. We developed the 

survey instrument based on a questionnaire used in previous studies, and, 

for this study, we pretested it with state WIA administrators from five 

states to ensure that it was easily understandable, unambiguous, and 

unbiased. Furthermore, officials’ responses to other questions confirmed 

their understanding, and as part of our quality control, we followed up 

with state officials when their responses were ambiguous. In one case, for 

example, responses were ambiguous on the questions related to standalone offices. We conducted a follow-up conversation with a state official 

who confirmed that the states’ stand-alone offices were not affiliated with

the one-stop system. We therefore believe that respondents understood 

our questions and that our survey results are accurate. We stand by our 

findings and our recommendation. Given that Labor reports requirements 

to be affiliated with the one-stop system are easy to meet, we hope that 

Labor will take steps to ensure that all states are meeting those 

requirements. In addition, Labor notes that withholding funding for 

noncompliance would be difficult and inefficient. We concur that 

withholding funds would be draconian, and we would hope that, given the 

ease in meeting the requirements, no state would suffer this consequence.

In addition, Labor expressed concerns that while we note a number of 

actions undertaken by officials to better foster coordination, we have not

fully reported all steps Labor has taken. We have modified the text to 

reflect the new information provided in Labor’s written comments. 

Finally, Labor stated that the report’s draft title does not fully reflect the 

broad range of topics discussed in this report. We have modified the title.

Labor’s entire comments are in appendix X. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its 

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary 

of Labor, relevant congressional committees, and others who are 

interested. Copies will also be made available at no charge on GAO’s Web 

site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 26 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any 

questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of 

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

of this report. Other major contributors are listed in appendix XI. 

Sincerely yours, 

Cynthia M. Fagnoni 

Managing Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

Page 27 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Methodology 

Our study assessed (1) the current composition of states’ one-stop systems 

and how this has changed over time, (2) what funds are primarily used to 

support states’ one-stop system infrastructure and how this has changed 

over time, and (3) the extent to which states are monitoring customer 

satisfaction with service delivery at one-stop centers. 

To provide information on how state and local one-stop delivery systems 

established under Workforce Investment Act (WIA) deliver employment 

and training services to job seekers and employers, we conducted an 

electronic survey of state workforce officials in 50 states. We did not 

survey the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. territories. 

The survey included questions on states’ one-stop delivery systems related 

to the 

• numbers of local workforce investment areas and participants served; 

• numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers, satellite or affiliated sites, 

and how these changed from program year 2003 to April 1, 2007; 

• infrastructure cost data for program year 2005; 

• use of stand-alone Employment Service offices; 

• mandatory programs and how these services were provided; 

• extent of integration of certain functions (e.g., reception area, 

information systems, and intake forms) at comprehensive one-stop 

centers; and

• program monitoring of customer satisfaction. 

The questionnaire was forwarded to state officials in April 2007, and

responses were received through late May 2007. We received surveys from 

all 50 states, although some states did not answer every question. States’ 

survey responses were as of April 1, 2007. Because we administered the 

survey to all 50 states, our results are not subject to sampling error. 

However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce 

other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For 

example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted, or the 

sources of information available to respondents in answering a question,

can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We included 

steps in the development of the survey, the collection of data, and the

editing and analysis of data to minimize such nonsampling errors. To 

reduce nonsampling error, the questionnaire was reviewed by survey 

specialists and pretested with officials from 5 states to develop a 

questionnaire that was relevant, easy to comprehend, unambiguous, and 

unbiased. We made changes to the content and format of the questionnaire 

based on the specialists’ reviews and the results of the pretests. Completed 

questionnaires were keypunched, and each record was verified by 

Page 28 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

comparing them with their corresponding questionnaires, and any errors 

were corrected. When the data were analyzed, a second independent 

analyst checked all computer programs. Finally, to assess the reliability of

certain data obtained from the survey, we independently researched the

information from other publicly available sources. 

In order to analyze trends in states’ one-stop delivery systems, we 

compared 2007 survey data with survey data from 2000 and 2001. In 

addition to our surveys, we conducted a literature review to identify 

relevant findings from other studies—including those sponsored by 

Labor—that examined one-stop delivery systems. We conducted our work 

between April 2007 and August 2007 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

Page 29 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA OneAppendix II: Survey of States on WIA One- Stop Centers 

Stop Centers 

Page 30 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA OneStop Centers 

Page 31 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA OneStop Centers 

Page 32 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA OneStop Centers 

Page 33 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA OneStop Centers 

Page 34 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA OneStop Centers 

Page 35 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA OneStop Centers 

Page 36 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA OneStop Centers 

Page 37 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA OneStop Centers 

Page 38 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA OneStop Centers 

Page 39 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA OneStop Centers 

Page 40 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA OneStop Centers 

Page 41 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA OneStop Centers 

Page 42 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA OneStop Centers 

Page 43 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix III: Numbers of Local Workforce 

Investment Areas (LWIA) and Comprehensive 

One-Stop Centers, and Related Information 

by State, as of April 1, 2007

State 

Total number of

LWIAs in state 

Number of

LWIAs with more than one

comprehensive one-stop

Largest number 

of comprehensive 

one-stop centers in LWIA 

Total number

of comprehensive

one-stop centers in state

Alabama 3 1 18 20

Alaska 1 1 7 7

Arizona 14 6 3 23

Arkansas 10 2 3 14

California 50 25 16 148

Colorado 9 6 14 34

Connecticut 5 2 2 7

Delaware 1 1 4 4

Florida 24 23 13 79

Georgia 20 9 6 46

Hawaii 4 0 1 4

Idaho 1 1 24 24

Illinois 26 12 4 44

Indiana 2 2 24 26

Iowa 15 1 2 16

Kansas 5 0 1 5

Kentucky 10 10 4 31

Louisiana 18 8 4 32

Maine 4 4 4 20

Maryland 12 7 3 22

Massachusetts 16 13 3 32

Michigan 25 22 9 96

Minnesota 16 11 8 47

Mississippi 4 4 14 44

Missouri 14 9 7 34

Montana 2 2 12 14

Nebraska 3 0 1 3

Nevada 2 1 3 4

New Hampshire 1 1 13 13

New Jersey 18 6 4 25

New Mexico 4 2 4 12

New York 33 21 7 76

North Carolina 24 21 9 103

North Dakota 1 1 8 8

Appendix III: Numbers of Local Workforce 

Investment Areas (LWIA) and Comprehensive 

One-Stop Centers, and Related Information 

by State, as of April 1, 2007 

Page 44 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix III: Numbers of Local Workforce 

Investment Areas (LWIA) and Comprehensive 

One-Stop Centers, and Related Information 

by State, as of April 1, 2007

State 

Total number of

LWIAs in state 

Number of

LWIAs with more than one

comprehensive one-stop

Largest number 

of comprehensive 

one-stop centers in LWIA 

Total number

of comprehensive

one-stop centers in state

Ohio 19 2 12 31

Oklahoma 12 3 3 17

Oregon 7 3 14 25

Pennsylvania 23 15 7 71

Rhode Island 2 0 1 2

South Carolina 12 4 3 18

South Dakota 1 1 14 14

Tennessee 13 2 2 15

Texas 28 24 30 163

Utah 1 1 35 35

Vermont 1 0 1 1

Virginia 16 10 5 34

Washington 12 8 4 25

West Virginia 7 6 5 19

Wisconsin 11 9 7 38

Wyoming 1 1 12 12

Total 563 324 1,637

Source: GAO survey of 50 states. 

Page 45 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix IV: Changes in Numbers of 

Comprehensive One-Stop Centers and 

Satellite or Affiliated Sites by State, 2001, 

2003, and 2007

Number of comprehensive

one-stop centers 

Number of satellite 

or affiliated sites 

States 2001 2003 2007

Percentage

change,

2001 to 2007 2001 2003 2007

Percentage

change,

2001 to 2007

Alabama 30 27 20 -33% 31 30 22 -29%

Alaska 6 7 7 17% 16 17 17 6%

Arizona 20 23 23 15% 36 35 36 0%

Arkansas 14 13 14 0% 54 57 51 -6%

California 162 166 148 -9% 129 116 118 -9%

Colorado 32 34 34 6% 44 40 40 -9%

Connecticut 8 11 7 -13% 11 10 15 36%

Delaware 4 4 4 0% 0 0 0 0%

Florida 112 96 79 -29% 56 39 17 -70%

Georgia 27 46 46 70% 0 78 116 a

Hawaii 10 4 4 -60% 3 10 9 200%

Idaho 6 6 24 300% 105 68 50 -52%

Illinois 44 46 44 0% 54 53 77 43%

Indiana 67 27 26 -61% 0 75 75 a

Iowa 16 16 16 0% 80 56 39 -51%

Kansas 15 5 5 -67% 26 20 20 -23%

Kentucky 27 29 31 15% 92 129 131 42%

Louisiana 22 34 32 45% 46 50 47 2%

Maine 23 20 20 -13% 0 2 1 a

Maryland 28 28 22 -21% 18 13 11 -39%

Massachusetts 35 32 32 -9% 3 5 5 67%

Michigan 102 100 96 -6% 14 11 17 21%

Minnesota 53 50 47 -11% 14 29 0 -100%

Mississippi 33 23 44 33% 216 23 12 -94%

Missouri 30 34 34 13% 35 126 135 286%

Montana 2 2 14 600% 78 12 5 -94%

Nebraska 5 3 3 -40% 16 15 17 6%

Nevada 2 5 4 100% 53 9 7 -87%

New Hampshire 13 13 13 0% 81 0 0 -100%

New Jersey 17 27 25 47% 24 15 21 -13%

New Mexico 26 5 12 -54% 2 9 11 450%

New York 61 76 76 25% 300 19 18 -94%

North Carolina 87 96 103 18% 15 15 23 53%

North Dakota 13 8 8 -38% 2 9 9 350%

Appendix IV: Changes in Numbers of 

Comprehensive One-Stop Centers and 

Satellite or Affiliated Sites by State, 2001, 

2003, and 2007 

Page 46 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix IV: Changes in Numbers of 

Comprehensive One-Stop Centers and 

Satellite or Affiliated Sites by State, 2001, 

2003, and 2007

Number of comprehensive

one-stop centers 

Number of satellite 

or affiliated sites 

States 2001 2003 2007

Percentage

change,

2001 to 2007 2001 2003 2007

Percentage

change,

2001 to 2007

Ohio 98 31 31 -68% 0 59 59 a

Oklahoma 34 31 17 -50% 24 17 31 29%

Oregon 40 33 25 -38% 4 5 26 550%

Pennsylvania 46 109 71 54% 44 b 1 -98%

Rhode Island 2 2 2 0% 4 4 4 0%

South Carolina 17 17 18 6% 29 38 45 55%

South Dakota 19 14 14 -26% 4 4 4 0%

Tennessee 14 15 15 7% 42 55 55 31%

Texas 144 155 163 13% 107 104 103 -4%

Utah 34 36 35 3% 6 104 104 1,633%

Vermont 1 1 1 0% 11 11 11 0%

Virginia 40 43 34 -15% 43 36 21 -51%

Washington 24 27 25 4% 30 42 42 40%

West Virginia 68 18 19 -72% 9 45 38 322%

Wisconsin 11 66 38 245% 14 12 40 186%

Wyoming 12 12 12 0% 7 7 8 14%

Total 1,756 1,726 1,637 2,032 1,738 1,764

Source: GAO survey of 50 states. 

a

Percentage change cannot be calculated. 

b

State did not report this information. 

Page 47 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
A

Comprehens

ppendix V: Programs Typically Available at 

ive One-Stop Centers by State 

Page 48 GAO-07-1096

Appendix V: Programs Typically Available at 

Comprehensive One-Stop Centers by State 

In our survey, we asked states to consider the typical comprehensive onestop center in their state and identify federal programs that were most 

often provided on-site. Figure 9 summarizes a typical one-stop center for 

each state.

Figure 9: Programs Available On-site in a Typical Comprehensive One-Stop Center by State 

 Ala.

 Alaska

 Ariz.

 Ark.

 Calif.

 Colo.

 Conn.

 Del.

 Fla.

 Ga.

 Hawaii

 Idaho

 Ill.

 Ind.

 Iowa

 Kan.

 Ky.

 La.

 Maine

 Md.

 Mass.

 Mich.

 Minn.

 Miss.

 Mo.

WIA Adult 

Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser) 

WIA Dislocated Worker 

Veterans’ Employment and Training

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

WIA Youth

 Unemployment Insurance

 Vocational Rehabilitation

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Adult Education and Literacy 

Food Stamp Employment and Training

Senior Community Service Employment Program 

Job Corps

Vocational Education 

 Employment and Training for Native Americans

Community Services Block Grant 

HUD Employment and Training

Other federal programs

Employment and Training for Migrant and 

Seasonal Farm Workers

WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix V: Programs Typically Available at 

Comprehensive One-Stop Centers by State 

Mont.

Neb.

Nev.

N.H.

N.J.

N.M.

N.Y.

N.C.

N.D.

Ohio

Okla.

Ore.

Pa.

R.I.

S.C.

S.D.

Tenn.

Tex.

Utah

Vt.

Va.

Wash.

W.Va.

Wis.

Wyo.

Total 50 50 49 48 44 39 36 36 30 26 22

WIA Adult

Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser) 

WIA Dislocated Worker 

Veterans’ Employment and Training

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

WIA Youth

Unemployment Insurance

Vocational Rehabilitation 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Adult Education and Literacy 

Food Stamp Employment and Training

Senior Community Service Employment Program 

Job Corps

Vocational Education 

 Employment and Training for Native Americans

Community Services Block Grant 

HUD Employment and Training

Other federal programs

Employment and Training for Migrant and

Seasonal Farm Workers

24 22 9 6 4 1 1 6

Source: GAO survey of 50 states.

Page 49 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix VI: Distribution of Stand-alone 

Employment Service Offices in States, as of 

April 1, 2007, and Employment Service Funds 

Used for Infrastructure 

Appendix VI: Distribution of Stand-alone 

Employment Service Offices in States, as of 

April 1, 2007, and Employment Service Funds 

Used for Infrastructure 

State 

Stand-alone

offices affiliated 

with the system

Stand-alone

offices unaffiliated

with the system

Total number of

stand-alone offices

Percentage

of one-stops with 

Employment Service

available on-site 

Amount of

Employment

Service funds

used for infrastructure,

program year 2005

Arizona 13 7 20 70 $784,000

Arkansas 0 1 1 100 a

California 0 12 12 a a

Connecticut 1 0 1 100 $67,218

Delaware 0 4 4 100 a

Hawaii 2 0 2 75 $160,000

Illinois 0 15 15 100 a

Iowa 30 0 30 100 $0

Kansas 5 5 10 100 $50,000

Kentucky 9 0 9 100 a

Montana 5 0 5 100 $700,000

New Mexico 11 0 11 a a

North Carolina 0 18 18 94 a

Oklahoma 4 0 4 100 a

South Carolina 16 6 22 94 a

Tennessee 0 5 5 100 a

Virginia 6 0 6 100 a

West Virginia 1 0 1 100 a

Total 103 73 176 

Source: GAO survey of 50 states. 

a

State did not report this information. 

Page 50 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix VII: Number and Percentage of 

Physical Locations at Community Colleges by Appendix VII: Number and Percentage of State, 2007 

Physical Locations at Community Colleges by 

State, 2007 

State 

Number of physical

locations at community colleges

Percentage of states’ physical

locations at community colleges

Alabama 10 24

Arkansas 5 8

California 10 4

Colorado 5 7

Florida 4 4

Georgia 23 14

Illinois 9 7

Indiana 3 3

Iowa 2 4

Kansas 2 8

Kentucky 6 5

Maine 1 5

Maryland 4 12

Michigan 3 3

Minnesota 6 13

Mississippi 3 5

Missouri 4 2

Nebraska 1 5

New Jersey 2 4

New York 6 6

North Carolina 31 25

Ohio 1 1

Oklahoma 5 10

Oregon 9 18

Pennsylvania 1 1

South Carolina 3 5

Utah 4 3

Virginia 1 2

Washington 10 15

Wisconsin 11 14

Wyoming 1 5

Total 186 6

Source: GAO survey of 50 states. 

Page 51 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix VIII: States’ 

Reporting on Comprehensive

One-Stop Centers Collecting 

Additional Information on

Customer Satisfaction, Program 

Year 2005 

Extent that one-stop centers collect 

additional information on customer satisfaction

State 100 percent

of one-stops

Majority of 

one-stops

Some of the 

one-stops

None of the

one-stops

Arizona X

Arkansas X

Colorado X

Delaware X

Hawaii X

Idaho X

Illinois X

Indiana X

Iowa X

Kentucky X

Maine X

Maryland X

Massachusetts X

Michigan X

Minnesota X

Mississippi X

Montana X

Nebraska X

Nevada X

New Hampshire X 

New Mexico X 

New York X 

North Dakota X 

Ohio X

Oklahoma X

Oregon X

Pennsylvania X

Rhode Island X 

South Carolina X 

South Dakota X 

Tennessee X

Texas X

Utah X

Appendix VIII: States’ Reporting on 

Comprehensive One-Stop Centers Collecting 

Additional Information on Customer 

Satisfaction, Program Year 2005 

Page 52 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix VIII: States’ 

Reporting on Comprehensive

One-Stop Centers Collecting 

Additional Information on

Customer Satisfaction, Program 

Year 2005 

Extent that one-stop centers collect 

additional information on customer satisfaction

State 100 percent

of one-stops

Majority of 

one-stops

Some of the 

one-stops

None of the

one-stops

Vermont X

Washington X

West Virginia X 

Wisconsin X

Wyoming X

Total 8 9 14 7

Source: GAO survey of 50 states 

Note: The remaining 12 states did not know whether or not the one-stop centers were collecting 

additional information on customer satisfaction. 

Page 53 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department Appendix IX: Comments from the of Labor 

Department of Labor 

Page 54 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 55 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Appendix X: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 56 GAO-07-1096

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Cynthia M. Fagnoni (202) 512-7215 or fagnonic@gao.gov 

Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director 

Dianne M. Blank, Assistant Director 

Timothy Hall, Analyst-in-Charge 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Thomas McCabe made significant contributions to this report in all facets 

of the work. In addition, Stuart Kaufman assisted in the design and 

analysis of the national survey; Jean McSween provided methodological

assistance, Jessica Botsford provided legal support, and Susannah 

Compton helped develop the report’s message. 

WIA One-Stop Centers
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve

the Workforce System. GAO-07-1051T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007.

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve 

Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program 

Impact. GAO-07-594. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2007. 

Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in

Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help 

Gauge Employer Involvement. GAO-07-167. Washington, D.C.: 

December 22, 2006. 

National Emergency Grants: Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award 

Timeliness and Data Collection, but Further Steps Can Improve Process. 

GAO-06-870. Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2006. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Most Workers in Five Layoffs Received 

Services, but Better Outreach Needed on New Benefits. GAO-06-43. 

Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2006. 

Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but 

Labor Needs to Make Data Available. GAO-06-53. Washington, D.C.: 

December 9, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to 

Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. GAO-06-82. 

Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but 

Little Is Known about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650. Washington, 

D.C.: June 29, 2005. 

Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment 

Services to Claimants. GAO-05-413. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2005. 

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.: February 18, 2005. 

Page 57 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Related GAO Products 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate

Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts May 

Not Be Sufficient. GAO-05-54. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 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.: February 23, 2004.

Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Worker Training and 

Employment through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with 

Federally Funded Programs. GAO-04-282. Washington, D.C.: February 13,

2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on 

State Allocations. GAO-03-1043. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 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. 

Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for 

Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO-03-636. Washington, D.C.: 

April 25, 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. 

Page 58 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
Related GAO Products 

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. 

Workforce Investment Act: States’ Spending Is on Track, but Better 

Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting. GAO-03-239. Washington, 

D.C.: November 22, 2002.

Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate 

Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective 

Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002. 

Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service 

Strategies, but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program

Development. GAO-02-413. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002. 

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. 

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns 

over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2001. Also 

testimony GAO-02-94T. 

Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of 

TANF Services. GAO/T-HEHS-00-145. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000. 

(130645) Page 59 GAO-07-1096 WIA One-Stop Centers
GAO’s Mission 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 

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, Beckers@GAO.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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