United States General Accounting Offke 

Report to the Ranking Minority Member, 

Committee 

Resources, 

on Labor ad Hun-&n 

U.S. Senate 

March 1994 MULTIPLE 

EMPLOYMENT 

TRAINING PROGRAMS 

Most Federal Agencies Do 

Not Know If Their 

Progrms Are Working 

Effectively 

GAO United States 

General Accounting Office 

Washington, D.C. 20648 

Health, Education, and 

Human Services Division 

B-256531 

March 2,1994 

The Honorable Nancy Landon Kassebaum 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Labor and Human Resources 

United States Senate 

Dear Senator Kassebaum: 

A strong internationally competitive economy depends, in part, on 

effectively preparing workers to compete in the workforce. Towards this 

end, the federal government has invested considerable effort and I 

resources in (1) facilitating potential workers’ entry into the workforce, 

(2) helping workers overcome barriers that hamper their ability to 

compete for jobs, and (3) assisting dislocated workers in reentering the 

workforce. We have recently identified’ over 150 programs that provide 

employment training assistance.2 To know whether these programs are 

getting the most for the resources invested, federal agencies not only need 

to track the expenditure of resources, but also to determine what the E 

outcomes were for participants and whether government programs made a 

difference for those who received services. 

To learn more about how federal agencies assess whether their 

employment training programs are working, you asked us to determine 

9 what data federal agencies collect on participant outcomes, 

+ how federal agencies monitor local program performance, and $ 

l what studies of program effectiveness have been conducted, 

To accomplish these objectives, we focused on programs that provide 

employment training assistance to the economically disadvantaged. 

According to the proposed fiscal year 1994 budget, 9 programs specifically 

target the economically disadvantaged, but a total of 62 programs,3 

‘Multiple Employment Programs: National Employment Training Strategy Needed (GAOR-HRD-93-27, 

June I&, 1993). 

%s used in this report, “employment training programs” refers to programs identified as (1) providing 

assistance to the unemployed, (2) creating employment opportunities, and (3) enhancing the skills of 

participants to increase their employability. We only included those programs that provide services to 

adults and out-of-school youth not enrolled in advanceddegree programs. 

30ur analysis was originally baaed on 66 programs targeting the economically disadvantaged existing 

in fiscal year 1991. Since that time, some programs have been dropped while others were added or 

consolidated into other programs, The total number of programs included in our analysis is 62. A 

complete listing of the 164 programs or funding streams identified as providing employment training 

assistance is shown in appendix I. 

Page 1 GACVHEAS-94-88 Mnlt3ple Employment Training Programs 
B-266631 

administered by 14 different federal agencies, provide some employment 

training assistance to the economically disadvantaged. These 62 programs 

had proposed budgets of about $17 billion4 or about two-thirds of the 

federal funds spent on employment training assistance. During our review, 

we 

. interviewed agency officials and obtained copies of data collected at the 

federal level, 

. reviewed agency monitoring reports to determine the extent of oversight 

provided and whether agencies monitor program outcomes, and 

l asked agency officials to identify studies conducted during the 19year 

period, ending December 1993, concerning the effectiveness of any of the 

62 programs in our analysis, and did a literature search, using 

governmental and commercially produced databases, to check for 

additional studies published during the period January 1999 through 

December 1993.6 

Because the focus of our analysis was on identifying which agencies 

collect data on participant outcomes or measure program effectiveness, 

we did not attempt to determine why some agencies did not collect this 

information or conduct studies that measure program effectiveness. 

In addition to this report, we have issued two other reports concerning 

problems with the current fragmented “system” of multiple employment 

training programs. The first report, Multiple Employment Training 

Programs: Conflicting Requirements Hamper Delivery of Services 

(GAO/HEHS94-78, Jan. 28,1994), concerns the extent to which differences in 

eligibility criteria and annual operating cycles hamper the ability of 

employment tm.i.ning programs to provide needed services. The second 

report, Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs 

Can Add Unnecessary Costs (GAo/HEHS-%-so, Jan. 28, 1994), concerns the 

extent to which programs overlap in the populations they target, in the 

services they provide, and in the administrative structures they create to 

deliver those services, We also have other ongoing work that will address 

the need for a major overhaul of the entire federal employment training 

system. 

I I I 

4Budget estimates are primarily based on the President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 1994, dated 

April 8,1993. When information was available, numbers in this total have been adjusted to represent 

only that portion of the program that provided assistance to adults or out-of-school youth not enrolled 

in advanced-degree programs. 

6Using this approach, we were able to identify over DO studies that were characterized as management 

or effemiveness studies; however, we may not have identified all the studies that had been published 

during that period. 

Page 2 GAOIEIEHS-94-118 Multiple Employment Training Programs ; 
B-!266691 

Background The federal government has historically played an important role in 

providing employment training assistance to the economically 

disadvantaged. In fiscal year 1994, federal programs are expected to invest 

an estimated $17 billion on employment training assistance for the 

economically disadvantaged, including (1) counseling and assessment, 

(2) remedial education, (3) vocational skill training, (4) placement 

assistance, and (5) support services. This assistance is provided through 

14 federal departments and independent agencies, including agencies in 

the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and 

Urban Development, and Labor, as well as independent agencies, such as 

Action, the Small Business Administration, and the Office of Personnel 

Management. 

To ensure programs get the most from this investment, federal program 

administrators must have information about their programs’ strengths and 

weaknesses. With this information, they can suggest changes to improve 

programs, such as modifying the types or number of services available, to 

help participants receive training that meets their needs and enables them 

to obtain employment. 

The Congress recently passed the Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993, which will require agencies to gather program performance 

data. Specifically, the act requires agencies to (1) have a strategic plan for 

program activities; (2) establish program performance goals that are 

objective, quantifiable, and measurable; and (3) submit a report on 

program performance to the President and the Congress. 

Results in Brief Federal agencies closely monitor their expenditure of billions of dollars 

for employment training assistance for the economically disadvantaged. 

However, most agencies do not collect information on participant 

outcomes nor do they conduct studies of program effectiveness-both of 

which are needed to know how well programs are helping participants 

enter or reenter the workforce. As a result, these agencies do not know 

whether their programs, aa currently configured, are providing assistance 

that results in participants getting jobs. Even when participants got jobs, 

agencies do not lmow whether employment resulted from participation in 

the program or if participants would most likely have found the same 

types of jobs on their own, without federal assistance. 

For about half the programs in our analysis, agencies did not collect data 

on what happened to program participants after they completed a given 

Page a GAOIHEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
B-256631 

program-neither whether they obtained jobs nor what wages they 

earned. The size of the program did not appear to make a difference in 

whether participant outcome data were collected. Large programs with 

annual budgets over $100 million were no more likely to have collected 

data on participant outcomes than smaller programs with budgets under 

$60 million. Without this information, administrators of programs large 

and small have difficulty knowing whether they are training participants 

for real job opportunities and whether participants have the skills 

employers need. 

In addition, although most of the employment training programs in our 

anaIysis had some form of oversight or monitoring effort, only about a 

third of the programs used these activities to assess participant outcomes. 

Again, the size of the program appeared to make little difference in the 

focus of these activities. Most oversight efforts focused only on 

compliance with program requirements and procedures or the amount of 

progress being made to provide agreed-upon services. Therefore, although 

administrators may be assured that their programs were in compliance, 

they did not know whether these programs achieved the results intended. 

The federal agencies responsible for these programs seldom conducted 

studies that measure program effectiveness or impact. According to 

program administrators, during the last 10 years, only 7 of the 62 programs 

in our analysis had studies that evaluated whether these programs made a 

difference for the participants, that is, whether participants would most 

likely have achieved the same outcomes without assistance. The studies 

that were performed tended to address larger programs, with 5 of the 7 

programs having annual budgets over $100 miJlion. But even among the 

larger programs, these studies addressed programs that accounted for only 

16 percent of the proposed fiscal year 1994 funding for the 15 employment 

training assistance programs with budgets over $100 million. 

Many Programs Do Almost all of the programs we reviewed collected some data on the dollars 

Not Collect Data on 

spent, services provided, and number of participants served. But only 

about half the programs collected outcome data on what happened to 

Whether Participants program participants after they received program services. As a result, 

Obtained Jobs administrators did not know if participants got jobs; if they got jobs, 

administrators did not know whether the jobs were related to the training 

provided or what wages the participants earned. Without this information, 

program administrators have difficulty determining if they are preparing 

participants for local labor market opportunities and whether participants 

Page 4 4ZiAOABIW94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
B-266831 

gain the skills needed to meet employer requirements. For example, 

because the Food Stamp Employment and Training program, as is the case 

with many other programs, does not collect data on who obtains a job 

after participating in the program, program administrators cannot assess 

whether the program appears to be achieving its objectives of helping the 

economically disadvantaged find employment or become self-sufficient. 

As shown in figure 1, of the 62 programs that provide assistance to the 

economically disadvantaged, about 90 percent of the programs collected 

data on dollars spent and the number of participants served. However, 

only 49 percent of the programs collected data on how many participants 

obtained jobs and only 26 percent collected data on wages earned. Size of 

the program did not appear to be a factor in determining which programs 

collected participant outcome data. Smaller programs with annual budgets 

of less than $50 million were just as likely as large programs with budgets 

of $100 million or more to collect participant outcome data. The categories 

of outcome data collected for each program in our analysis are shown in 

appendix II. 

Page S GAWHEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs ’ 
B-266531 

Figure 1: Percent of Programs Coflectlng Various Core Data Elements 

Dollars Spent 

Number Served 

Partlclpant Characteristics 

I b 73% 

Services Provided 

~ b -- 

69% 

Participant Employment Status 

I b 

49% 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

Percent of Programa r 

E 

Even when outcome data were collected, few linked these data with data 

on the services provided or participant demographic characteristics. We 

found that only about 34 percent of the programs serving the economically 

i 

disadvantaged attempted to link the outcomes achieved by participants ; 

with services provided or demographic characteristics. For example, the 

Even Start-Migrant Education program collected data on participant 

employment status and wages earned, which can be used to determine if I 

the program is meeting its goals. However, the program did not link 

participant outcome data with data on services or training provided. As a ’ 

result, administrators of the program did not know whether the training / 

they provided helped participants obtain jobs, nor could they identify ways 

to modify the program to improve performance. 1 

Program officials should know whether participants trained as truck 

drivers, for example, get jobs as truck drivers. By linking participant 

Page 6 GAO/EEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Trainhag Programs 
B-236631 

demographic characteristics to training provided and job outcomes, 

program officials can determine whether their programs are more 

successful for some participants (for example, men) than others (for 

example, women). Officials also can determine whether there are 

disparities in who receives what types of training. For example, in our 

report on racial and gender disparities in Job Training Partnership Act 

(JTPA) services, we reported that 34 percent of the projects in our analysis 

(67 of 199) had a disparity in at least one training mode-classroom 

training, on-the-job training, or job search assistance only-for at least one 

of the racial groups assessed.6 

Monitoring Activities 

Generally Ignore 

Program Outcomes 

monitoring or oversight. However, these monitoring efforts generally 

concerned compliance with program requirements and procedures, such 

as compliance with Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) regulations, or 

progress made in providing agreed-upon services, such as providing 

classrooms for specific training activities. These efforts did not include 

participant outcomes. 

Although compliance with program requirements and financial integrity 

are important concerns, the failure to consider participant outcomes as a 

part of agencies’ strategies for planning oversight efforts results in 

agencies’ not being able to identify local projects that are having 

performance successes or difXculties. For example, one monitoring report 

we reviewed verified that the participants listed by the local project were 

actually served and were satisfied with the services received. The report, 

however, did not include what happened to the participants after they 

received these services or whether the services provided helped them find 

jobs. As a result, although program administrators were assured resources 

had been used correctly, they did not know whether those resources 

achieved the results intended. 

As shown in table 1,97 percent of the 62 programs providing employment 

training assistance to the economically disadvantaged had some form of 

federal monitoring or oversight, but only 34 percent of the oversight 

efforts we identified included an assessment of participant outcomes. 

Program size did not appear to be a factor in whether monitoring included 

an assessment of participant outcomes. Larger programs were no more 

“Job Training Partnership Act: Racial and Gender Disparities in Services (GAOIHRD-91-148, Sept. 20, 

1991). 

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-94-33 Mukiple Employment Training Programa 
B-256531 

likely to have used their oversight activities to monitor participant 

outcomes than smaller programs. 

Table 1: Percentage of Programs by 

Type of Monitoring Actlvitles Percentage of 

Type of monitoring programs 

Compliance/statusa 97 

Financial 73 

Participant outcomes 34 

%cludes compliance with program requirements and procedures, as well as assessments of 

progress made in providing agreed-upon services. 

Even when federal staff visit local projecl, they concentrate their 

assessment on compliance issues rather than participant outcomes. We 

found that of the 62 programs serving the economically disadvantaged, P 

87 percent had site visits usually performed by federal staff in field offices. 

However, only 37 percent looked at participant outcomes when they 

visited local projects. The areas covered by the monitoring activities of / 

each of the 62 programs in our analysis are shown in appendix III. / 

Few Studies Have 

Been Performed 

Concerning Program 

Effectiveness or 

Tracking participant outcomes can provide important feedback to 

Impact 

agencies on the extent to which programs are achieving their objectives. 

But to determine whether programs providing employment training 

assistance are really making a difference7 or whether participants would 

most likely have achieved the same outcomes without the program, 

agencies must compare the outcomes achieved by program participants 

with the outcomes of similar nonparticipants. However, we found that few 

agencies operating the 62 programs that served the economically 

disadvantaged had sponsored such studies. Program administrators 

identified only 7 programs that had been studied, during the lo-year period 

ending December 1993, using a comparison of participant outcomes with 

‘The terms program effectiveness and program impact are interchangeable as used in our analysis. We 

define “program effectiveness evaluation” as the application of scientific research methods to estimate 

how much of observed results, intended or not, are caused by program activities. Effect is linked to 

cause by design and analysis that compare observed results with estimates of what might have been 

obsenred in the absence of the program. In the textbook Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, Peter W. 

Rossi and Howard E. Freeman define the term impact assessment as “Evaluation of the extent to 

which a program causes changes in the desired direction in the target. population....Impact assessment 

is directed at establishing, with as much certainty as possible, whether or not an intervention is 

producing its intended effects-The outcomes of social programs are assessed by comparing I 

information about participants and nonparticipants, before and after an intervention, or by other less 

powerful research designs. But the essential considerations involve the systematic rejection of 

alternative, competing explanations for the observed outcomes other than the intervention.” 

Page 8 GAUHEHS-94-88 Multiple EmploJrment Training Programs 
B-266531 

the outcomes of similar nonparticipantzx See table 2 for a listing of 

programs and related studies. 

Our analysis of the programs that had been studied showed that larger 

programs were more likely to have been the subject of these studies. We 

found that 5 of the 7 programs studied had annual budgets over 

$100 million. But even among the larger programs, the programs studied 

only accounted for 16 percent of the total proposed funding for the 15 

programs with budgets over $100 million. 

While we did not determine why more agencies did not perform 

effectiveness studies using a comparative approach, the Department of 

Labor, in commenting on the report, stated that the high costs and the 

denial of potentially beneficial services were two reasons why more 

agencies have not used this approach to assess the effectiveness of their 

programs. While other approaches may be more feasible, without random 

assignment, conclusive attribution of effects to various treatments cannot 

be made. 

Page 9 GAO/HEAS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
B-266631 

Table 2: Studies Published Between 

January 1990 and December 1993 That 

Evaluated Program Effectiveness 

Program/Study Title/Author of Study/Date 

Food Stamp Employment and Training Program (Agriculture) 

Evaluation of the Food Stamp Employment Program, Abt. Associates, Inc., June 1990 

Even Start (Eciucatton) 

National Evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: Report on Effectiveness, 

Abt. Associates, Inc., and RMC Research Corporation, October 1993 

Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program (Health and Human Services) 

GAIN: Two-year Impacts in Six Counties-California’s Greater Avenues for 

Independence Program, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 

May 1993 1 

Community Service Block Grant, Demonstrations (Health and Human Services) 

Summary of Final Evaluation Findings from F’f89: Demonstration Partnership Program 

Projects. Monograph Series 100-89: Case Management Family Intervention Models, 

Department of Health and Human Services, June 1992 

Summary of Final Evaluation Findings from FY89: Demonstration Partnership 

Program Projects. Monograph Series 20049: Micro-Business and Self-Employment, ’ 

Department of Health and Human Services, June 1992 

Summary of Final Evaluation Findings from FY89: Demonstration Partnership I 

Program Projects. Monograph Series 300-89: Homeless Individuals and Families, 

Department of Health and Human Services, June 1992 1 

Summary of Final Evaluation Findings from FY 89: Demonstration Partnership 

Program Projects. Monograph Series 400-89: Early Prevention-High School L 

Youth-at-Risk, Department of Health and Human Services, June 1992 

JTPA IIA - Disadvantaged Adults (Labor) > 

The National JTPA Study: Title II-A Impacts on Earnings and Employment at 18 Months, ? 

Abt. Associates, Inc., January 1993 

Evaluating JTPA Programs for Economically Disadvantaged Adults: A Case Study of 

Utah and General Findings Research Report, National Commission for Employment 

Policy, June 1993 

Employment Services {Labor) f 

Labor Market Implications of ES Services for Duration of Joblessness, Probability of 

Subsequently Remaining Employed, and Repeated Spells of Joblessness: 

Comparison of UI Beneficiaries, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 

Acril 1993 

Trade Adjustment Assistance Workers (Labor) 

International Trade and Worker Dislocation: Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment 

Assistance Program, Mathematics Policy Research, Inc., April 1993 

Our review of studies that were published during the 4year period, 

January 1990 through December 1993, identified many additional studies 

that were characterized as management or effectiveness studies. While 

these studies may provide program administrators useful information on 

their programs, they do not provide a statistically valid approach for 

evaluating program effectiveness. We found, however, that most of the 

studies focused on resource or program management issues, such as 

program costs, number and characteristics of participants served, and 

Page 10 GW/HEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Trdnhg Programs 
B-256691 

types of services provided. As shown in table 3, of 94 studies published 

during that 4-year period, 89 focused on various aspects of program 

management affecting 28 programs. Forty-five of the studies dealt with 

participant outcomes from 20 programs, of which 26 studies liked 

outcomes to services provided or participant characteristics. Eleven 

studies* concerning 7 programs attempted to evaluate program 

effectiveness or impact by comparing participant outcomes to those of 

similar individuals not receiving program services. A complete list of the 

94 studies we identified and the subject areas covered are shown in 

appendix Iv. 

Table 3: Studies by the issues 

Evaluated Issue evaluated Studies 

Resource management 89 

Participant outcomes 45 

Program effectiveness 11 

Programs 

28 

20 E 

7 

Some studies indicate that the programs were successful in that outcomes 

achieved by program participants were better than the outcomes achieved 

by similar individuals who did not receive services from the programs. 

Other studies, however, raise questions about the value of the programs, 

as they are currently configured, because program participants did not 

achieve significantly better results than similar individuals who did not 

receive services. For example, the JTPA program outcome data have shown 

high placement rates and wage levels; however, a study of the JTPA 

program by Abt Associates, Inc., published in January 1993, has raised 

questions about the program’s effectiveness. The study shows that while 

comparisons between program participants-adult women and men-had 

generally positive effects on earnings and employment compared with 

their counterparts in the control group, the JTPA program had little or no 

effect on female youth participants and male youth participants had lower 

earnings than their counterparts in the control group. The results of each 

study that assessed program effectiveness are summarized in appendix V. 

aEducation officials identified six studies now being conducted that would measure program 

effectiveness or impact; however, none of these studies will be available until later in 1994. The 

programs being evaluated include Upward Bound, Student Support Services, Adult Education, School 

Dropout Demonstration Assistance, National Workplace Literacy, and Direct Student Loan. 

Page 11 GAO/HEAS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
B-266631 

Conclusion While many people are successful at finding jobs on their own, others have 

a more difficult time. To help the economically disadvantaged to compete 

in the workforce, the federal government expects to spend an estimated 

$17 billion in fiscal year 1994. Yet, most federal agencies do not collect the 

participant outcome data nor do they conduct the program effectiveness 

studies needed to provide them information on how well, if at all, their 

programs are actually helping people find jobs. 

Although we did not determine why agencies did not collect participant 

outcome data nor measure program effectiveness, it is clear that without 

this information, program administrators in these agencies cannot 

(1) determine how well programs appear to be doing in preparing people 

for employment, (2) identify what services are most effective in helping 

program participants obtain employment, (3) suggest the adjustments 

needed to improve services to get better results for the resources invested, 

or (4) determine what impact, if any, their programs have had in helping 

the economically disadvantaged to enter or reenter the workforce. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Response 

We sent a draft copy of this report to the following 14 departments and 

independent agencies for comment: Action, Department of Agriculture, 

Appalachian Regional Commission, Department of Commerce, 

Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Health 

and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Department of the Interior, Department of Labor, the Office of Personnel 

Management, the Small Business Administration, Department of 

Transportation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Written 

comments were received from the Department of Defense, Department of 

Education, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of 

Labor, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Department of 

Transportation (see app. VI). Action, the Department of Agriculture, 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Small Business 

Administration, and Department of Veterans Affairs provided us with oral 

comments. When appropriate, we used the comments received to clarify 

and update our report. The Appalachian Regional Commission, 

Department of Commerce, and Department of the Interior did not respond. 

While most of the comments received agreed with the overall conclusion 

of the report, they raised questions concerning the specific data in the 

report related to their programs. Their comments felI into three areas: 

(1) concerns about the inclusion of some programs in our analysis, (2) the 

use of proposed funding levels rather than actual levels, and (3) the 

Page 12 GAO/HEAS-94-86 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
B-256631 

narrow criteria used to identify studies of program effectiveness. We have 

summarized their comments and our response below. See appendix VI for 

the written comments received and our detailed response. 

Several agencies questioned the inclusion of some programs in the study 

because they believe their programs do not fit the scope of our analysis. 

Our analysis includes all programs and funding streams that provided 

assistance to adults and out-of-school youth to enhance their skills or 

employment opportunities. This is consistent with footnote 1 in appendix I 

that defines the federally funded programs included in our analysis as 

those that assist the unemployed, create employment, or enhance 

employability. We believe that the programs questioned by the Action 

agency, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, and the Small Business 

Administration provide assistance that enhances participant employability 

or employment opportunities and, therefore, meet our criteria. 

For example, in their oral comments, the Action agency objected to the 

inclusion of the Literacy Corps, the Foster Grandparent, and Senior 

Companion Programs in our analysis. These programs provide volunteers 

to assist communities to resolve local poverty-related problems such as 

illiteracy, unemployment, and homelessness. Because economically 

disadvantaged volunteers in these programs receive an hourly stipend, 

these programs are considered to have provided employment 

opportunities for the economically disadvantaged. Both the National 

Commission for Employment Policy and the Congressional Research 

Service have included these programs in their studies of employment 

training assistance programs. The Literacy Corps also enhances the skills 

of economically disadvantaged people. As a result, we believe these 

programs should be included in our analysis. In addition to concerns from 

the Action agency, the Small Business Administration questioned the 

inclusion of the Minority Business Development Program and the Business 

Development Assistance to Small Business Program in our analysis. To 

clarify what types of programs were included in the scope of our work, we 

have modified the description of our criteria. 

Several Departments and agencies also questioned the funding amounts 

cited in appendix I. These amounts are based primarily on the proposed 

budget submitted by the President, April 8, 1993. We recognize that actual 

funding levels may reflect differences from the amounts shown in 

appendix I, but determining actual funding levels for so many different 

programs at one point in time was not practical. We have expanded our 

Page 13 GAOIHEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs y 
8-256631 

explanation of the source of our funding data in the text of the report as 

weU as in appendix I. 

In some instances, the amounts cited in appendix I are only a portion of 

the proposed budget for that program because only a portion of the funds 

were used for adults or out-of-school youths. In those instances, when 

agency officials were able to provide us an estimate of how much should 

be included in the program, the amounts shown have been adjusted. In 

other instances, when the portion of funds that were used for adults and 

out-of-school youth could not be determined, we included proposed 

funding for the entire program. We recognize that our estimates of funding 

for employment training assistance are only an approximation. However, 

we believe the concern of the report is not funding levels, but whether 

program administrators have the information needed to determine 

whether their programs are working effectively. 

Some agencies also suggested that additional studies should have been 

included in our analysis of agency efforts to determine the effectiveness of 

their programs. We found that the additional studies mentioned (1) were 

still under way and we could not determine whether they will look at 

program effectiveness using analyses of participant outcomes compared 

with outcomes of similar groups of nonparticipants, (2) were already 

included in our analysis, or (3) did not appear to use the comparative 

analysis approach to look at program effectiveness. We recognize that our 

definition is rather strict. Our emphasis on the comparative approach 

should not be interpreted to suggest that studies that do not use a 

comparative approach do not provide usefuI information. Other 

techniques do indeed give indications of effectiveness. However, without 

random assignment, conclusive attribution of effects to various treatments 

cannot be made. 

Page 14 GAO/HEHB-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs , 
B-266531 

We did our work between February and November 1993 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. As agreed, we 

obtained agency comments on this report. As requested, unless you 

publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of 

this report until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send 

copies of this report to the agencies responsible for administering the 

programs we reviewed and to other interested parties. If you or your staff 

have any questions concerning this report, please call me at 

(202) 512-7014. Other major contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix VII. 

Sincerely yours, 

Linda G. Morra 

Director, Education 

and Employment Issues 

Page 18 GAO!HEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programa 
Contents 

Letter 

Appendix I 

Federal Employment 

and Training 

Programs Proposed 

Funding Levels by 

Agency (Fiscal Year 

1994) 

1 

20 

Appendix II 

Outcome Data 

Collected by Federal 

Programs Providing 

Employment 

Assistance to the 

Economically 

Disadvantaged 

27 

Appendix III 

Monitoring Activities 

by Federal Programs 

Providing 

Employment 

Assistance for the 

Economically 

Disadvantaged 

30 

Page 16 GAO/FIEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs T 
Contents 

Appendix IV 

GAO Identified 

Studies Published 

Between January 1990 

and December 1993 

on Employment 

Training Programs for 

the Economically 

Disadvantaged 

Appendix V 

Studies That 

Evaluated Program 

Effectiveness: 

Methodology and 

Findings 

Appendix VI 

Comments From the GAO Comments 

57 

82 

Agencies 

Appendix VII 

Major Contributors to 

This Report 1 

Related GAO Products 92 

Tables 

4 

Table 1: Percentage of Programs by Type of Monitoring Activities 8 

Table 2: Studies Published Between January 1990 and 10 

December 1993 That Evaluated Program Effectiveness 

Table 3: Studies by the Issues Evaluated 11 

Page 17 GAO/HEX-IS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Progwuns 
Contente 

Figure Figure 1: Percent of Programs ColIecting Various Core Data 

Elements 

6 

Abbreviations 

AFDC Aid to Families With Dependent Children 

EDWAA Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Assistance 

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity 

ES Employment Service 

GAIN Greater Avenues for Independence 

HUD Housing and Urban Development 

JOBS Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training 

JTPA Job Training Partnership Act 

MSFW Migrant Seasonal Farmworkers 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SDA Service Delivery Area 

TAA Trade Aaustment Assistance 

TJTC Targeted Jobs Tax Credit 

TFiA Trade Readjustment Allowances 

UI Unemployment Insurance 

VA Veterans Administration 

Page 18 GAO!TIEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
x 

Page 19 

* ! 

Y 

GAORIEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Progra~~~e 
Appendix I 

Federal Employment and Training Programs 

Proposed Funding Levels by Agency (Fiscal 

Year 1994)” 

Dollars in miflions 

Aaencv and prowarns 

Y 

Programs included 

1994 funding3 In analvslsC 

All programs (154) Total: $24,837.7 

Action - (3) programs Total : 100.9 

Literacy Corps 5.3 

Foster Grandparent Program 66.4 

Senior Companion Program 29.2 

Department of Agriculture - (1) program Total: 162.7 

Food Stamp Employment & Training 162.7 

Appalachian Regional Commlsslon - (1) program Total: 11.2 

Awalachian Vocational and Other Education Facilities and Operations 11.2 

X 

I 

X 1 

z 

x 1 

Department of Commerce - (9) programs Total: 220.5 

Minority Business Development Centers 24.4 X I 

American Indian Program 1.9 

Economic Development-Grants for Public Works and Development 735.4 X 

Economic Development-Publid Works Impact Program d X 

Economic Development-Support for Planning Organizations 24.8 

Economic Development-Technical Assistance 10.4 

Economic Development-State and Local Economic Development Planning 4.5 X 

Special Economic Development and Adjustment Assistance Program-Sudden and 

Severe Economic Dislocation and Long-Term Economic Deterioration 

Community Economic Adjustment 

Department of Defense - (2) programs 

19.1 

8 

Total: 72.8 

x : 

X 

Military Base Reuse Studies and Community Planning Assistance S.0 

Transition Assistance Program 66.8 

Department of Education - (60) programs Total: 13,031.4 

Even Start-State Educational Agencies 88.8 

Even Start-Migrant Education 2.7 

Women’s Educational Equity 2.0 

Indian Education-Adult Education 4.9 

Migrant Education-High School Equivalency Program 8.1 

Migrant Education-College Assistance Migrant Program 2.3 

School Dropout Demonstration Assistance 27 7 

X 

X 

I 

x ’ 

x j 

X 

Adult Education-State Administered Basic Grant Program 261.5 

Adult Education for the Homeless 10.0 X 

National Adult Education Discretionary Program 9.3 

Vocational Education-Demonstration Projects for the Integration of Vocational and 

Academic Learning 

f 

Vocationat Education-Educational Programs for Federal Correctional Institutions f 

(continued) 

Page 20 GAMXEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Raining Programs 
Appendix I 

Federal Employment and ‘I’rainhg Program8 

Pxopoaed Funding Levels by Agency (Fiscal 

Year 1994) 

Dollars in millions 

Agency and programs 

Vocational Education-Comprehensive Career Guidance and Counseling 

Vocational Education-Blue Ribbon Vocational Educational Programs 

Vocational Education-Model Programs for Regional Training for Skilled Trades 

Vocational Education-Business/Education/labor Partnerships 

Vocational Education-Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions 

Vocational Education-Tribal Economic Development 

Vocational Education-Basic State Programs 

Vocational Education-State Programs and Activities 

Vocational Education-Single Parents, Displaced Homemakers and Single Pregnant 

Women 

Vocational Education for Sex Equity 

Vocational Education-Programs for Criminal Offenders 

Vocational Education-Cooperative Demonstration 

Programs Included 

1994 fundingb in analysisc 

I 

I 

I 

f 

2.9 

I 

717.5 

81.3 X 

69.4 X 

31.1 X 

9.6 X 

f X 

Vocational Education-Indian and Hawaiian Natives 15.1 

Vocational Education-Opportunities for Indians and Alaskan Natives 

Vocational Education-Community Based Organizations 

f 

ii.8 X 

Vocational Education-Bilingual Vocational Training 

Vocational Education-Demonstration Centers for the Training of Dislocated Workers 

Vocational Education-Consumer and Homemaking Education 

0.0 

f 

0.0 

Vocational Education-TechPrep Education 104.1 

National Workplace Literacy Program 22.0 

English Literacy Program 0.0 

Literacy for Incarcerated Adults 5.1 

National Center for Deaf-Blind Youth and Adults 6.7 

State Literacy Resource Centers 7.9 

Student Literacy Corps 6.1 X 

Federal Pell Grant Programs 2846.9 X 

Guaranteed Student LoansQ 5,889.0 X 

Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity GrantsQ 125.0 

Upward Bound 160.5 

Talent Search 67.0 

Federal Work Study ProgramQ 89.6 

Federal Perkins Loan Program-Federal Capital ContributionsQ 13.0 

Grants to States for State Student Incentives 0.0 

Educational Opportunity Centers 23.3 

Higher Education-Veterans Education Outreach Program 3.1 

Student Support Services 110.3 

(continued) 

Page 21 GAWEEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix I 

Federal Employment and Tralnhg Programs 

Proposed Funding Level6 by Agency (Fiwal 

Year 1994)’ 

Dollars in millions 

Agency and programs 

Postsecondary Education Programs for Persons with Disabilities 

Rehabilitation Services Basic Support-Grants to States 

Rehabilitation Services Basic Support-Grants for Indians 

Rehabilitation Services Service Projects-Handicapped Migratory and Seasonal Farm 

Workers 

, _. 

Rehabilitation Services Service Projects-Special Projects and Demonstrations for 

Providing Vocational Rehabilitation Services to Individuals With Severe Disabilities 

Rehabilitation Services Service Projects-Supported Employment 

Proiects With lndustrv Programs 

Programs included 

1994 fundingb in analysisc 

8.8 

1,933.4 

6.4 

1.2 

19.9 

10.6 

21.6 

Supported Employment Services for Individuals with Severe Handicaps 33.1 

Comprehensive Services for Independent Living 15.8 

Librarv Literacv 0,o X 

School to Workh 

Public Library Services 

Department of Health and Human Services - (14) programs 

Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program 

Communitv Services Block Grant 

1350 

f 

Total: 2,203,5 

825.0 

352.7 

x 

X 

Community Services Block Grant-Discretionary Award 39.7 x 

Community Services Block Grant Discretjonary Awards-Demonstration Partnership 4.4 X 

Refuaee and Entrant Assistance-Discretionary Grants 12.6 

Refuaee and Entrant Assistance-State Administered Proarams 84.4 

Refugee and Entrant Assistance-Voluntary Agency Programs 

Community Demonstration Grant Projects for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment of 

Homeless Individuals 

Family Support Centers Demonstration Program 

State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants 

39.9 

f 

6.9 

809.9 

Transitional Livino for Ftunawav and Homeless Youth 11.8 

Independent Living 16.2 

Scholarships for Health Professions Students From Disadvantaged Backgrounds I 

Health Careers Opportunity Program I X 

Department of Housing and Urban Development - (4) programs Total: 303.4 

Emergency Shelter Grants Prooram 51.4 

Supportive Housing Demonstration Program 164,O 

Youthbuildi 88.0 

Family Self-Sufficiency Program I 

Department of the Interior - (2) programs Total: 20.9 

Indian Emolovment Assistance 1fSQ 

Indian Grants-Economic Development 4.0 

Page 22 

(continued) 

GAWHEFiS-94-M Multiple Employment ‘lhining Programs 
Appendix I 

Federal Emplcqment and Training Programs 

Proposed Funding Levels by Agency (Fiscal 

Year 1994) 

Dollars in millions 

Agency and programs 

Department of Labor - (36) programs 

JTPA IIA Training Services for the Oisadvantaged-Adult 

JTPA IIA State Education Programs 

JTPA tlA Incentive Grants 

JTPA IIA Training Programs for Older individuals 

JTPA IIC Disadvantaged Youth 

JTPA IlC Disadvantaged Youth-Incentive Grants 

JTFA IIC Disadvantaged Youth-State Education Programs 

JTPA II6 Training Services for the Disadvantaged-Summer Youth Employment and 

Training Program (Regular) 

JTPA IIB Summer Youth Employment and Training Program (Native American) 

JTPA EDWAA-Dislocated Workers (Substate Allotment)’ 

JTPA EDWAA-Dislocated Workers (Governor’s Discretionary)’ 

JTPA EDWAA-Dislocated Workers (Secretary’s Discretionary)’ 

JTPA Defense Conversion Adiustment Prooram 

JTPA Defense Diversification 

JTPA Clean Air Employment Transition Assistance 

JTPA-Mtarant and Seasonal Farmworkers 

Prowams Included 

1994 fundingb - in analysW 

Total: 7,141.59 

793,l X 

82.4 X 

51.5 X 

51.5 X 

563.1 

34,3 

54.9 

1,688.8 X 

k 

229.5 

229.5 

114.7 

In 

X 

” 

0 

78,3 X 

JTPA-Employment and Training Research and Development Projects Il.2 

JTPA Employment Services and Job Training-Pilot and Demonstration Programs 35.1 X 

JTPA-Native American Employment and Training Programs 

JTPA Job Corps 

Federal Bonding Program 

Senior Community Service Employment Program 

Apprenticeship Training 

Trade Adjustment Assistance-Workers 

Targeted Jobs Tax Credit 

Employment Service-Wagner Peyser State Grants (7a) 

Employment Service-Wagner Peyser Governor’s Discretionary Funds (7b) 

61.9 X 

1,153.7 X 

0.2 X 

421.1 X 

17-2 

215.0 X 

19.2 X 

734.8 X 

81,6 X 

Labor Certification for Alien Workers 58.6 

Interstate Job Bank 1,9 

Youth Fair Chancep 25.0 

One-Stop Career Center@ 

Veterans Employment Program 

150.0 

9.0 

Disabled Veterans Outreach Program 84.0 X 

Local Veterans Employment Representative Program 77.9 

Homeless Veterans Reintegration Projectq f 

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-94-98 Multiple Employment Training Progrums 

(continued) 
Appendix I 

Federal Employment and Training Programs 

Proposed Fuuding Levela by Agency (Fiscal 

Year 1994) 

Dollars in mIllions 

Agency and programs 

Job Training for the Homeless Demonstration Project 

Office of Personnel Nlanaaement l 01 prostram 

Programs included 

1994 fundingb in analysisc 

12.5 X 

Total: r 

Federal Employment for Disadvantaged Youth-Summer 

Small Business AdministratIon - (8) proprams 

r X 

Total: 157.4 

Management and Technical Assistance for Socially and Economically Disadvantaged 

Businesses 

Small Business Development Center 

a.1 

67.0 

Women’s Business Ownershio Assistance 1.5 

Veteran Entrepreneurial Training and Counseling 

Service Corps of Retired Executives Association 

0.4 

3.1 

Business DeveloDment Assistance to Small Business 20.9 X 

Procurement Assistance to Small Business 33<7 

Minority Business Development 22.7 

Department of Transportation - (11 prowam Total: 1,5 

X 

Human Resource Proarams 1.5 

Department of Veterans Affairs - (13 Pwrmns Total: 1,410,O 

All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance 095, I 

Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Program s 

Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance 109,l 

Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans 245.1 

Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educationai Assistance 42.4 

Hostage Relief Act Program I 

Vocational Training for Certain Veterans Receiving VA Pension I X 

Vocational and Educational Counseling for Servicemembers and Veterans 

Setvice Members Occupational Conversion and Training 

” 

64.5 

Health Care for Homeless Veterans 28,3 

Domiciliarv Care for Homeless Veterans 23 A 

Housing and Urban Development/ Veterans Affairs-Supported Housing 2.1 

aPrograms identified are federally funded and provide for (I) assisting the unemployed, 

(2) creating employment, and (3) enhancing employability. The programs provide assistance to 

adults and out-of-school youth not enrolled in advanced-degree programs. 

bThe proposed fiscal year 1994 funding amounts shown in appendix I are based primaNy on the 

President’s proposed budget, dated April 8$ 4993. In those instances, when agency officials were 

able to provide us an esIimate of the portion of the proposed budget that was used to provide 

assistance to adults and out-of-school youth, the amount has been adjusted, l-iowever, in other 

instances, when the portion of funds used for adults and out-of-school youth could not be 

determined, the amount shown is for the entire program. 

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-94-M Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix I 

Federal Employment and Training Programs 

Proposed Funding Levels by Agency (Fiscal 

Year 1994). 

CPrograms included in analysis were those identified as providing some assistance to the 

economically disadvantaged, 

dEconomic Development-Public Works Impact: program funds included in Grants for Public 

Works and Development Facilities. 

BCommunity Economic Adjustment: funds allocated in 1993 are used to support programs in out 

years until funding is depleted. 

‘Data not available at this time 

QEducation loan program: amounts shown are estimates of loans for associate and nondegree 

programs, when possible to differentiate. 

hSchool to Work: program proposed for fiscal year 1994. Funded at $270.0 million split evenly 

between the Oepartments of Education and Labor. Department of Education funding iS from Carl 

Perkins Act: $15 million from National Programs-Research and Oevelopment and $120 million 

from Cooperative Demonstrations Program. Department of Labor funding is from the Job Training 

Partnership Act (JTPA). 

iYouthbuild: program proposed for fiscal year 1994 

IFamily SelfzSufficiency Program: job training, education, and support services are paid for by 

other programs, such as Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) and JTPA, Federal 

funds may be used to cover local administrative costs. For fiscal year 1993, appropriations for 

operating subsidies permit the payment of $25.9 million to cover the administrative costs of 

operating the Family Self-Sufficiency program. 

kJTPA IIB Summer Youth Employment and Training Program (Native American): funding included 

in JTPA II6 (Regular) program total. 

‘The actual funding for the JTPA Title Ill EDWAA program was increased significantly from the 

budget request dated April 8, 1993. The proposed funding for substate areas of $229.5 million 

was increased to $537 million, The proposed funding for the EDWAA Governor’s Discretionary 

Fund was also $229.5 million, but was increased to $357 millions Similarly, the Secretary’s 

Discretionary funds were increased from $114.7 million to $223 million. 

mJTPA Defense Conversion Adjustment Program: funds allocated in 1991 used to support 

programs in out years until funding is depleted. 

“JTPA Defense Diversification: funds aLlocated in 1993 used to support programs in out years 

until funding is depleted. 

OJTPA Clean Air Employment Transition Assistance: no funds were appropriated for the Clean Air 

Act in fiscal year 1994. 

ONew program in 1994, 

qThe Homeless Veterans Fteintegration Project was inadvertently omitted from our analysis of 

programs serving the economically disadvantaged. 

‘Federal Employment for Disadvantaged Youth-Summer: program coordinated by Office of 

Personnel Management, but carried out by numerous federal agencies, Obligations devoted to 

administration not separately identifiable, 

3elected Reserve Educational Assistance Program: funding included in All-Volunteer Force 

Educational Assistance total. 

‘Hostage Relief Act Program: replaced by the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorist Act 

of 1986, No program funding used in any year, but available. 

Page 26 GAOiHEHS-94-98 Multiple Employment !l’ra.inhg Progrums 

I 
Appendix I 

Federal Employment and Training Programs 

Proposed Funding Levela by Agency (Fiscal 

Year 1994y 

“Vocational and Educational Counseling for Servicemembers and Veterans: program funds 

included in other veterans programs, such as the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance 

Program. 

Page 26 GANHEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix II 

Outcome Data Collected by Federal 

Programs Providing Employment Assistance 

to the Economically Disadvantaged 

Agency and programs 

Actlon 

Literacy Corps 

Department of Agriculture 

Food Stamp Employment &Training 

Ar33alachian Fte!alonal COmmkdOn 

Appalachian Vocational and Other Education Facilities and 

Operations 

DeDartment of Commerce 

Minority Business Development Centers 

Economic Development-Grants for Public Works and 

Development 

Partlclpant Participant sklll Partlclpant wage 

employment status attainment levels 

a a a 

a a a 

Economic Develooment-Public Works lmoact Prodram X 

Economic Development-State and Local Economic 

Development Plannino 

* a a 

Special Economic Development and Adjustment Assistance 

Program-Sudden and Severe Economic Dislocation and 

Long-Term Economic Deterioration 

X a a 

Communitv Economic Adiustment X a X 

Department of Defense 

Transition Assistance Program 

Military Base Reuse Studies and Community Planning 

Assistance 

Department of Education 

Even Start-State Educational Aaencies 

a * a 

a 8 a 

X X 

Even Start-Migrant Education 

Women’s Educational Equity 

Adult Education for the Homeless 

X X X 

X 

X X 

Vocational Education-State Programs and Activitiesb 

Vocational Education-Single Parents, Displacedb 

Homemakers, and Single Pregnant Women 

Vocational Education for Sex Equityb 

Vocational Education-Programs fcr Criminal Offendersb 

Vocational Education-Cooperative Demonstrationb 

Vocational Education-Communitv-Based Oraanizationsb 

Student Literacy Corps 

Federal Pell Grant Prooram 

Guaranteed Student Loans 

Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants 

Upward Bound 

e 

(continued) 

Page 27 GAO/XIEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix II 

Outcome Data Collected by Federal 

Programs Providing Employment Assiatamce 

TV the Economically Dtiadvantiged 

Agency and programs 

Talent Search 

Federal Work Study Program 

Federal Perkins Loan Program-Federal Capital Contributions 

Grants to States for State Student Incentives 

Educational Oooortunitv Centers 

Participant 

employment status 

X 

Participant skill Participant wage 

attainment levels 

X 

X 

X 

Student Support Services 

Library Literacy 

Deoartment of Health and Human Services 

Job Opportunities and Basic SkiIts Program 

Community Services Block Grant 

X X 

Community Services Block Grant-Discretionary Award 

Community Services Bock Grant Discretionary 

Awards-Demonstration Partnership 

Health Careers Oooortunitv Proaram 

X { 

X X x b 

X 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Fami ty Self-Sufficiency Program 

Department of the Interior 

Indian Employment Assistance 

Department of Labor 

JTPA IIA Training Services for the Disadvantaged-Youth and 

Adultc 

JTPA IIA State Education Programs 

JTPA IIA Trainina Proarams for Older Individuals 

X X X 

X 

i 

X X X / 

4 

X 

JTPA IIA Incentive Grants 

JTPA IIB Training Services for the Disadvantaged- Summer 

Youth Employment and Training Program (Regular) 

X X X 

X 

JTPA IIB Summer Youth Employment and Training Program 

(Native American) 

JTPA-M&rant and Seasonal Farmworkers 

X 

X X X 

JTPA Employment Services and Job Training-Pilot and 

Demonstration Programs 

Federal Bonding Program 

JTPA-Native American Employment and Training Programs 

Senior Community Service Employment Program 

X X X 

X 

X X 

X X 

JTPA Job Corps X X X 

Trade Adjustment Assistance-Workers 

Targeted Jobs Tax Credit 

Employment Service-Wagner Peyser State Grants (7a) 

Employment Service-Wagner Peyser Governor’s Discretionary 

Funds (7b) 

X 

X 

X 

(continued) 

Fage 28 GM/HEW&94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programa 
Appendix II 

Outcome Data Collected by Federal 

Programs Providing Employment A.aaietnnce 

tx~ the EconomhUy Disadwtaged 

Agency and programs 

Disabled Veterans Outreach Program 

Job Training for the Homeless Demonstration Project 

Patticipant Participant skill Participant wage 

employment status attainment 

i 

levels 1 

X 

X x ! 

Office of Personnel Management 

Federal Emolovment for Disadvantaaed Youth-Summer 

Small Buslness AdministratIon 

Bus!ness Development Assistance to Small Business 

Minoritv Business DeveloDment 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Vocational Training for Certain Veterans Receiving VA 

Pensions 

X X 

aNot applicable. 

bThe information shown in this appendix does not reflect the data collected by the National Center 

for Educational Statistics for the vocational education programs. 

cStarting in program year 1993, the JTPA Title IIA program was split into the Title IA program for 

adults and the IIC program for youth. Because our analysis began before the programs were 

split, the data for this appendix show the two programs as one program. 

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Trainlug Programs ~ 
Monitoring Activities by Federal Programs 

Providing Employment Assistance for the 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Compliance/ Financial Partlclpant 

Agency and programs status. actlvltbb outcomesc 

Actlon 

Literacy Corps X 

Department of Agriculture 

Food Stamp Employment and Training X X 1 

Appalachian Fteglonal Commlsslon 

Appalachian Vocational and Other Education Facilities and Operations X X x i 

Department of Commerce 1 

Minority Business Development Centers x X 

Economic Development-Grants for Public Works and Development X { 

1 

Economic Development-Public Works Impact Program X i 

Economic Development-State and Local Economic Development X 

Planning 

Special Economic Development and Adjustment Assistance X X x , 

Program-Sudden and Severe Economic Dislocation and Long-Term 

Economic Deterioration 1 

Community Economic Adjustment X X x / 

Department of Defense 

Transition Assistance Program X 

Military Base Reuse Studies and Community Planning Assistance X X 

Department of Educatlon 

Even Start-State Educational Agencies X X t 

Even Start-Migrant Education x 

Women’s Educational Equity X X X 

Adult Education for the Homeless 

Vocational Education-State Programs and Activities 

X 

X X 

Vocational Education-Single Parents, Displaced Homemakers, and 

Single Pregnant Women 

Vocational Education for Sex Equity 

Vocational Education-Programs for Criminal Offenders 

X X 

X X 

X X 

Vocational Education-Cooperative Demonstration 

Vocational Education-Community Based Organizations 

Student Literacy Corps 

X X 

X X 

X 

Federal Pell Grant Program 

Guaranteed Student Loans 

X X 

x x 

Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants 

Upward Bound 

Talent Search 

X X 6 

X X X b 

X X x 

Federal Work Study Program X X 

(continued) 

Page 80 GAO/HElXS-94-88 Mdtiple Employment Tbhing Programa 
Appendix III 

Monitoring Activities by Federal Programa 

Providing Employment AwWance for the 

Economically DiaaWantaged 

Agency and programs 

Federal Perkins Loan Program-Federal Capital Contributions 

Grants to States for State Student Incentives 

Educational Opportunity Centers 

Student Support Services 

Library Literacy 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program 

Community Services Block Grant 

Community Services Block Grant-Discret;onary Award 

Community Services Block Grant Discretionary Awards-Demonstration 

Partnership 

Health Careers Opportunity Program 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Family Self-Sufficiency Program 

Department of the Interior 

Indian Employment Assistance 

Department of Labor 

JTPA IIA Training Services for the Disadvantaged-Youth and Adu!tsd 

JTPA IIA State Education Proarams 

JTPA IIA Training Programs for Older Individuals 

JTPA IIA Incentive Grants 

JTPA IIB Training Services for the Disadvantaged-Summer Youth 

Employment and Training Program (Regular) 

Compliance/ Financial Patiicipant 

status8 activiti& outcomesc 

X X 

X X 

X X x ! 

X X 

X X 

X X x ’ 

X X / 

X X 

X 

X X X 

1 

X 

X X 1 

1 

X X x : 

X X X 

X X X 

X X X 

X X X 

JTPA IIB Summer Youth Employment and Training Program (Native 

American) 

X X x ; 

JTPA-Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers 

JTPA Employment Services and Job Training-Pilot and Demonstration 

Programs 

Federal Bondina Pruaram 

X X X 

X X X 

X X x t 

JTPA Native American Employment and Training Programs X X X i 

Senior Community Service Employment Program X X 

JTPA Job Corps 

Trade Adiustment Assistance-Workers 

Targeted Jobs Tax Credit 

Employment Service-Wagner Peyser State Grants (7a) 

Employment Service-Wagner Peyser Governor’s Discretionary Funds 

Vb) 

Disabled Veterans Outreach Program 

Job Training for the Homeless Demonstration Project 

X X X 

X 

e 

X \ 

X a 

X X 

X X x L 

(continued) 

Page 31 GAWHEES-94-W Multiple Employment Training Programs ; 
Ap*lldix III 

Monitoring Activities by Federal Programs 

Providing Employment As&dance for the 

Economica.Uy Disadvantaged 

Agency and programs 

Off ice of Personnel Management 

Federal Employment for Disadvantaged Youth-Summer 

Compliance/ 

status’ 

0 

Financial 

activitiesb 

Participant . 

outcomesc 

{ 

Small Business AdminisWaUon 

Business Development Assistance to Small 5usiness 

Minority Business Development 

5 

X 

X X 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Vocational Training for Certain Veterans Receiving VA Pensions 

i 

X 4 

1 

aMonitoring activities concerning compliance and status include (I) reviewing the project to 

determine if it is meeting program requirements and following program procedures and 

(2) assessing the progress made in providing agreed-upon services. 

bFinancial monitoring activities include determining if the project has (1) followed proper 

accounting practices and OfvlB contracting procedures and (2) only spent funds on altowable 

items. 

cParticipant outcome data include employment status, wages earned, and skills attained. 

dStarting in program year 1993, the JTPA Title HA program was split into the Title IIA program for 

adults and the IIC program for youth. Because our anaiysis began before the programs were 

split, the data for this appendix show the two programs as one program. 

eProgram did not have a monitoring activity that was performed by federal officials. 

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-94-89 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix IV 

GAO Identified Studies Published Between 

January 1990 and December 1993 on 

Employment Training Programs for the 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Agencies, programs, and studies 

Actlon - Literacy Corps 

Develooment Associates, Inc.: An Evaluation Report on the VISTA 

Program 

management 

X 

Participant 

outcomes 

X 

Program 

effectiveness 

Literacy Corps 

Development Associates, Inc.: An Evaluation Report on Volunteers in X X 

Service to America 

Department of Agriculture - Food Stamp Employment & Training 

Abt Associates1 Inc.: Evaluation of the Food Stamp Employment and 

Training Program Final Report: Volume 1 

X X X 

Appalachian Reglonal Commission - Appalachian Vocatlonal and Other Education Faclllties and Opefatlons 

Appalachian Regional Commission Office of the Inspector General: X X 

Audit Report for the Pennsylvania Welfare Reform Demonstration 

Project 

Tichenor and Eiche: Report on Review of Appalachian Regional 

Commission Work Force Excellence Initiative 

Tichenor and Eiche: Report on Independent Audit of Appalachian 

Regional Commission Workplace Literacy Programs for the Southern 

Tier Central Region of Appalachian New York 

M.D. Oppenheim and Company: A survey of the financial and 

programmatic records of the grants awarded by ARC to the 

Employment Opportunity Training Center of Northeastern Pennsylvania 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Commerce: The 

Pennsylvania Self- Employment Demonstration Project 

Department of Commerce - Minority Business Development Centers 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Minority Business: Minority Business 

Develooment Aaencv Needs to Address Proaram Weaknesses 

X 

X 

X 

X X 

X 

US General Accounting Office: MINORITY BUSINESS: Management X 

Improvements Needed at Minority Business Development Agency 

Department of Commerce - Economic Development - Grants for Public Works and Development 

Department of Commerce - Economic Development-Public Works Impact Program 

Mt. Auburn Associates: Evaluation of the U.S. Economic Development X 

Administration’s Public Works Program 

Department of Commerce -Economic Development-State and Local Economic Development Planning 

Department of Commerce - Special Economic Development and AdJustment Assistance Program-Sudden and Severe 

Economic Dlslocatlon and Long-Term Economic Deterloratlon 

Department of Commerce - Communltv Economic Adiustment 

Department of Commerce: Economic Development Administration Title 

IX Revolving Loan Fund Portfolio Status Report 

X X 

Department of Defense - Transltlon Assistance Program 

Department of Defense - Military Base Reuse Studles and Community Planning Assistance 

(continued) 

Page 33 GAWEEHS-94-W MultIpIe Employment Training Programs 
GAO Identified Studies Published Between 

January 1990 and December 1993 on 

Employment Training Programa for the 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Program 

Agencies, programs, and etudlee management 

Denertment of Education - Even Start - State Educational Agencies 

Abt Associates, Inc., and RMC Research Corporation: National X 

Evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program 

Deuartment of Education - Even Start-Marant Educetlon 

Department of Education -Women’s Educational Equity 

Department of Education - Adult Education for the Homeless 

US. General Accounting Office: Homelessness: McKinney Act X 

Programs and Funding Through Fiscal Year 1991 

Department of Education - Vocational Education - State Programs and Activltiee 

Department of Education: National Assessment of Vocational X 

Education Interim Reoort to Conaress 

Particfpant 

outcomes 

X 

X 

Program 

effectiveness ; 

X 

Department of Education - Vocetlonal Education - Single Parents, Displaced Homemalcere, and Single Pregnant Women 

Department of Education - Vocatlonal Education for Sex Equity 

Department of Education - Vocatlonal Education - Programs for Criminal Offenders 

Department of Education - Vocatlonal Education - Cooperative Demonetretlon 

Depatiment of Education - Vocatlonel Education - Communlty Baaed Organizetlone 

Denartment of Educetlon - Student Llteracv Corps 

Department of Educetlon - Federal Pell Grant Program 

US. General Accounting Office: Student Financial Aid: Most X 

Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants Are Awarded to Needy 

Students 

Department of Education: Study to Determine the Consequences of 

the Need Analysis Formula Contained in the Higher Education 

Amendments of 1992 

X 

t 

National Computer Systems, Inc. and Macro Systems, Inc.,: 

Department of Education, Off ice of Student Financial Assistance: Pell 

Grant End-of-Year Report 1990-91 

Department of Education - Gueranteed Student Loans 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Student Loans: Direct Loans Could 

Save Billions In First Five Years with Proper Implementation 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Student Loans: Direct Loans Could 

Save Money and Simplify Program Administration 

X 

! 

X 

U.S. Genera! Accounting Office: Student Loans: Characteristics of 

Defaulted Borrowers in the Stafford Student Loan Program 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Testimony: Vulnerabilities in the 

Stafford Student Loan Program 

X 

X 

US. General Accounting Office: Stafford Student Loans: Miliions of X 

Dollars in Loans Awarded to lneliqible Borrowers i 

U.S. General Accounting office: Supplemental Student Loans: 

Legislative Changes Have Sharply Reduced Loan Value 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Testimony: Student Aid Information 

and Private Tuition-Guarantee Programs 

X 

X 1 

(continued) ’ 

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training F+rograms ! 
Appendix IV 

GAO Identified Studies Published Between 

January 1990 and Deeember 1998 on 

Employment Training Programs for the 

Bconomhlly Disadvantaged 

Program 

manageinent 

X 

Participant 

outco-mes 

Program 

Agencies, programs, and studies effective-hess 

Department of Education: Trends in Guaranteed Student Loan and PetI 

Program Participation By Type of Institution 

Department of Education: A Comparison of Projected and Actual 

Performance of the Verification Criteria in Three Award Years 

Department of Education: Is There a Direct Relationship between 

Civilian Employment and Stafford Loan Volume 

Department of Education: FY 1991 Guaranteed Student Loan 

Programs Data Book 

DeDartment of Education - Federal Supplemental Education Oppotiunity Grants 

Department of Education - Upward Bound 

Department of Education -Talent Search 

DeDartment of Education - Federal Work Study Program 

Department of Education - Federal Perkins Loan Program-Federal Capital Contributions 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Perkins Student Loans: Need for X 

Better Controls Over Loans Recovered from Closed Schools 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Perkins Student Loans: Options That 

Could Make the Program More Financially Independent 

Department of Education: Correlates of Graduate Student Borrowing 

Patterns 

X 

X 

Department of Education - Grants to States for State Student Incentives 

Department of Education - Educational Opportunity Centers 

Department of Education - Student Support Services 

Department of Education - Library Literacy 

Department of Health and Human Services - Job Opportunltles and Basic Skills Program 

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation: Effectiveness of 

California’s Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program 

X X 

Renee S. Woodworth: The Promise of Jobs: Policies, Programs, and 

Possibilities 

X 

Congressional Research Service: Aid to Families With Dependent 

Children and Postsecondary Education 

X 

US. General Accounting Office: Welfare to Work: States Serve Least 

Job-Flaadv While Meeting JOBS Particioation Rates 

X 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Welfare to Work: JOBS Participation 

Rate Data Unreliable for Assessing States’ Performance 

X 

US. General Accounting Office: Welfare to Work: Effectiveness of 

Tribal JOBS Program Unknown 

US General Accounting Office: Welfare to Work: States Begin JOBS, 

but Fiscal and Other Problems May Impede Their Progress 

X 

X 

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, The Center for Law and 

Social Policy: JOBS in the South: A Review of Initial State Data 

Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector 

General: Review of On-The-Job Training Under the JOBS Program, 

Ohio Department of Human Services 

X 

X X 

(continued) 

Page 86 GMMIEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment ‘hining Prog~ama 
Appendix lV 

GAO Identified Studies Published Between 

January 1990 and December 1993 on 

Employment Training Programs for the 

Economic&& Disadvantaged 

Program Participant 

Agencies, programs, and studies management outcomes 

Department of Health and Human Services - Community Sarvices Block Grant 

Department of Health 8nd Human Services - Communltv Sewices Block Grant - Discretionary Award 

DeparIment of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector X 

General: Audit of Office of Community Services Discretionary Grants 

Awarded to Mexican American Unity Council, Inc., San Antonio, Texas 

Program 

effectiveness 

Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector 

General: Review of Discretionary Grants Awarded Under the Rural 

Housing and Rural Facilities Program 

X 

Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector 

General: Audit of Office of Community Services Discretionary Grants 

Awarded lo Mora Economic Self-Development Cooperative, Mora, 

New Mexico 

X X 

Department of Health and Human Services - Community Services Block Grant - Discretionary Awards - Demonstration 

Partnership 

Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 

and Families: Demonstration Partnership Program Projects 

Monograph Series 100-89: Case Management Family lntervent!on 

Models 

X X X 

Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 

and Families: Demonstration Partnership Program Projects, 

Monograph Series 200-89: MicroBusjness and Self-Employment 

Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 

and Families: Demonstration Partnership Program Projects, 

Monograph Series 300-89: Homeless individuals and Families 

X X X 

X X X 

Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children X X X 

and Families: Demonstration Partnership Program Projects, 

Monograph Series 400-89: Early Prevention-High School Youth-At-Risk 

Deuartment of Health and Human Services - Health Careers Opportunitv Program 

Department of Housing and Urban Development - Family Self-Sufficiency Program 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Pubtic and Assisted Housing: Some X 

Proaress Made in lmplementino HUD’s Famitv Self-Sufficiencv Procrram 

Department of the interior - Indian Employment Assistance 

Deparlment of Labor - JTPA IIA Disadvantaged Youth and Adults. 

Avraham Laths: The Effects of JTPA Approved Training on Earnings 

US. General Accounting Office: Testimony: Amending the Job 

Training Partnership Act: Inadequate Oversight Among Issues that 

Need to Be Addressed 

x 

X 

MGT of America, Inc.: An in-Debth Review and Evaluation of JTPA for X X 

the Alamo Service Delivery Area 

South Carolina State Councji on Vocational and Technicat Education: A 

Review of Two Years of Coordination: JTPA Programs, Secondary 

Vocational Education, Technical Education 

X X 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Job Training Partnership Act: Youth 

Participant Characteristics, Services, and Outcomes 

X X 

Page 86 

(coniinued) 

GAO/HEES-94-88 Multiple Employment !&aiulng Programs 
Appendix lV 

GAO Identified Studiee Pnbliahed Between 

Januaq 1990 and December 1999 on 

Employment Tmining Progranu for the 

EconomiaUy Dhdvantaged 

Agencies, programs, and studies 

San Luis Obispo County, Inc. Private Industry Council: Return on 

Investment Report 

Program 

managemsnt 

X 

Participant 

outcomes 

X 

Program 

eftectheness 

John Redman: Rural Development Perspectives: Federal Job Training 

for the Poor May Be More Cost Effective in Rural Areas 

National Commission for Employment Policy: Training Hispanics: 

Implications for the JTPA System 

X X 

X 

National Commission for Employment Policy: Evaluating JTPA 

Programs for Economically Disadvantaged Adults: A Case Study of 

Utah and General Findings Research Report 

X x X 

US General Accounting Office: Job Training Partnership Act: 

Inadequate Oversight Leaves JTPA Vulnerable to Waste, Abuse, and 

Mismanagement 

X 

Abt Associates Inc.: The National JTPA Study: Title 11-A Impacts on 

Earnings and Employment at 18 Months 

X X 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Job Training Partnership Act: Actions 

Needed to Improve Participant Support Services 

U.S. General Accounting Oflice: Job Training Partnership Act: Racial 

and Gender Disparities in Services 

X X 

X X 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Testimony: The Job Training 

Partnersh!p Act: Abuse of On-the-Job Training and Other Contracting 

is an Ongoing Problem 

X X 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Job Training Partnership Act: Services 

and Outcomes for Participants With Differing Needs 

National Association of Counties: The Challenge of Quality: Participant 

Selection, Recruitment and Assionment 

X X 

X 

Department of Labor - JTPA MA State Education Programs 

John FL Petry, Memphis State University, and Fred K, Bellott, New 

Mexico State University: A Study of Terminees from JTPA Programs in 

Tennessee 

X 

Department of Labor - JTPA IIA Tratnlng Programs for Older lndlvlduals 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Job Training Partnership Act: 

Information on Set-Aside FundIng for Assistance to Older Workers 

Jean Latting, University of Houston: tmplementing Performance-Based 

Contracting in the JTPA Older Worker Program 

X 

X X 

Department of Labor - JTPA IIA lncentlve Grants 

SRI International: Effects of the 6 Percent Exemption Policy X X 

Department of Labor - JTPA II8 Training Services for the Disadvantaged - Summer Youth Employment and Training Program 

(Regular) 

Department of Labor, Office of lnsoector General: Audit of 1992 JTPA X 

&rmmer Youth Employment and’Training Program 

Department of Labor - JTPA IIS Summer Youth Emplovment and Training Program (Native American) 

Department of Labor - JTPA - Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers 

Berkeley Planning Associates and SPR Associates: Evaluation of the X X 

JTPA Title IV MSFW Program, Final Report 

(continued) 

Page 97 GAO/EIEHS-94-86 Multiple Employment Training Prograuw 
Appendix IV 

GAO Identified Studies Published Between 

January 1990 and December 1993 on 

Employment Training Programa for the 

Economically Disadvantnged 

Program Participant 

Agencies, programs, and studies management outcomes 

Department of Labor - JTPA Employment Services and Job Training - Pilot and Demonstration Programs 

Department of Labor - Federal Eondlng Program 

Program 

effectiveness ! 

I 

Department of Labor - JTPA Native American Employment end Training Programs 

Department of Labor - Senior Community Service Employment Program 

Department of Labor - JTPA Job Corps i 

Department of Labor - Trade Adjustment Assistance- Workers 

US. General Accounting Office: Dislocated Workers: Improvements X 

Needed in Trade Adjustment Assistance Certification Process i 

Mathematics Policy Research, Inc.: International Trade and Worker X X x ’ 

Dislocation: Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program 

Department of Labor, Office of the Inspector General: Audit of Program X X 1 

Outcomes in Nine Selected States, FY 1991 and 1992 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Dislocated Workers: Comparison of 

Assistance Programs 

X X 

Secretary of Labor: Study of Trade Adjustment Assistance Program 

Worker Certification Methods 

Department of Labor - Targeted Jobs Tax Credit 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Targeted Jobs Tax Credit: Employer 

Actions to Recruit, Hire, and Retain Eligible Workers Vary 

TVT Associates: Policy Evaluation and Review of the Targeted Jobs 

Tax Credit 

X i 

X X 

X 

Department of Labor: Targeted Jobs Tax Credit Program, State of 

Alabama 

X X 

Department of Labor - Employment Service - Wagner Peyser State Grants (7a) i 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Employment Service: Improved X 

Leadership Needed for Better Performance 

National Commission for Employment Policy: Improving the 

Effectiveness of the Employment Service: Defining the Issues 

W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research: Labor Market 

Implications of ES Services for Duration of Joblessness, Probability of 

Subsequently Remaining Employed, and Repeated Spells of 

Joblessness: Comparisons of Ut Beneficiaries in Pittsburgh and 

Philadelphia, 1979-87 

X 

i 

X X x ; 

Depsrtment of Labor - Employment Service -Wagner Peyser Governor’s Discretionary Funds (7b) 

Department of Lsbor - Disabled Veterans Outresch Program 

Department of Labor - Job Training for the Homeless Demonstration Project 

Department of Labor: Employment and Training for America’s X 

Homeless: Job Training for the Homeless Demonstration Program 

Paul A, Tore, Ph.D., and the Research Group on Homelessness, State X 

University of New York at Buffalo: Final Evaluation Report: 

Demonstration Employment Project - Training and Housing (DEPTH} 

Cynthia D. Moehrlin, Elgin Community College: The Community X 

College and the Homeless: A Model for the Nation 

X 

1 

X 

X 

(continued} ’ 

Page 38 GAO/HEES-94-69 Multiple Entployment Training Progrmu 
GAO Identified Studies Published Between 

January 1990 and December 1993 an 

Employment Traiuing Programa for the 

EconomicaUy Diaadvautiged 

Progrem 

Agencies, programs, and studies management 

Office of Personnel Management - Federal Employment for Disadvantaged Youth-Summer 

Small Business AdmInIstratIon - Business Development As&stance to Small Business 

Small Business AdminIstration - Minority Business Development 

National Academy of Public Administration: Assessment of Title II x 

Demonstration Projects for Women Business Owners 

National Academy of Public Administration: Organization and X 

Operation of the Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership 

Development Program: An Assessment of Progress under Revised 

Statutes P.L, 100-656 and P.L. 101-574 

Participant Program 

outcomes effectiveness 

4 t 

X 

6 

x 

i 

Office of Inspector General, U.S. Small Business Administration: The X 

7(j) Management and Technical Assistance Program of the Office of 

Minority Small Business Inspection Report 

US. General Accounting Office: Small Business: Problems in X 

Restructuring SBA’s Minority Business Development Program 

Department of Veterans Affairs - Vocational Tralning for Certain Veterans Receiving VA Penslons 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Vocational Rehabilitation: VA Needs X 

to Emphasize Serving Veterans with Serious Employment Handicaps 

U.S. General Accounting Office: Vocational Rehabilitation: Better VA X 

Management Needed to Help Disabled Veterans Find Jobs 

Deoartment of Veterans Affairs: Reoort of Survey X 

Bill Eddy: Three-Year Study of Significant Indicators Reflecting 

Outcomes and Performance of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

Vocational Rehabilitation Program 

Veterans Benefits Administration: A Report on the Vocational 

Rehabilitation Satisfaction Survev 

X X 

/ 

X 

%tarting in program year 1993, the JTPATitle IIA program was split into the Title IiA program for 

adults and the IIC program for youth. 8ecause our analysis began before the programs were 

split, the data for this appendix show the two programs as one program. 

Page 39 GAO/HEX-IS-94-88 Multiple Employment Traiuiug Programs ’ 
Appendix V 

Studies That Evaluated Program 

Effectiveness: Methudology and Findings 

Title GAIN: Two-Year Impacts in Six Counties-C&forma’s Greater Avenues for 

Independence Program 

Author and Date Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, May 1993 

Program Purpose GAIN (Greater Avenues for Independence) is the CaIifornia version of the 

JOBS program. The purpose of the program is to help AFDC recipients enter 

the wortiorce and increase earnings and reduce welfare costs 

Methodology The study included six California counties that account for more than 

one-third of the state’s GAIN caseload and more than one-haIf of its AFW 

caseload. A total of 33,000 AFW recipients, for whom GAIN participation 

was mandatory and who had attended an orientation, were randomly 

assigned to either an experimental group (who remained subject to GAIN'S 

participation mandate) or a control group (who were precluded from GAIN 

but could seek access to other services in the community). The two 

groups’ employment rates, average earnings, and average AFDC payments, 

as welI as the percentage of each group that left the AFDC rolls, were 

compared during the follow-up period. The differences between the two 

groups on these measures are the estimated impacts of GAIN. 

Findings Among other findings, overa& about 29 percent of the single parents in the 

experimentaI group were working at the end of the second year, almost 

6 percentage points more than the control group (a statisticahy significant 

difference). About 51 percent of these single parents were employed at 

some time during the 2 years, compared with 45 percent of the control 

group. In addition, earnings for the singie parents in the experimental 

group, for the second year of the study, was $2,712 per group member 

compared with $2,193 per control group member. This yielded an earnings 

gain, or impact, of $519 per group member (or 24 percent of the average 

control group member’s earnings). 

The proportion of single parents in the experimentsI group receiving any 

AFIX payments had dropped to 61 percent by the end of the 2-year period. 

However, only a portion of this change can be attributed to GAIN since the 

control group experienced a similar decline. Nonetheless, three counties 

produced a statistically significant reduction in the proportion of single 

parents in the experimental group receiving weEare by the end of year 2. 

Similar results were also found for heads of two-parent families. 

Page 49 GAWHEHS-94-88 Multiple Exnployment Training J!rograma 
Appendix V 

Studies That Evaluated Program 

Effectiveness: Methodology and Findings 

Title The National JTPA Study: Title II-A Impacts on Earnings and Employment 

at 18 Months 

Author and Date Abt Associates, Inc., January 1993 

Program Purpose The purpose of the JTPA IIA program is to help the economicahy 

disadvantaged to compete in the workforce and reduce their dependency 

on we&u-e. 

Methodology In the nationaI JTPA study, 20,601 JTPA applicants in 16 service delivery 

areas (SDAS) across the country were randomly assigned to the treatment 

group (which was aIlowed access to the program) or the control group 

(which was not provided services) over the period November 1987 

through September 1989. The earnings and employment outcomes of both 

groups were then measured through follow-up surveys and administrative 

records obtained Tom state unemployment insurance (TJI) agencies. Data 

on the baseline characteristics of the two groups were collected as part of 

the program intake process, and information about the employment and 

training services received was obtained from follow-up surveys and SDA 

records. The study sites were not chosen to be representative of the nation 

in a statistical sense, but they did reflect the diversity of 104 programs 

and environments in JTPA. 

This study gave estimates of the impact of JTPA Title II-A on the earnings 

and employment over the first 18 months after random assignment of four 

target groups-adult women and men (22 and older) and female and male 

out-of-school youths (16 to 21). 

Findings The results of the study are mixed, While JTPA Title II-A had generally 

positive effects on the earnings and employment of aduhs, adult men did 

not experience a statisticahy significant increase in earnings. The average 

18-month earnings of the adult women randomIy assigned to the treatment 

group went up by an estimated $539, or 7.2 percent of the control group 

mean. Access to the program also increased the percentage of women 

employed at some time during the follow-up period by 2.1 percent. These 

estimates were found to be statisticahy significant and interpreted as 

reliable evidence of positive impacts on earnings. The average increase in 

the percentage employed for adult men was 2.8 percentage points and the 

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix V 

Studies That Evaluated Program 

Effectiveness: Methodology and Findings 

average earning gain $550 or 4.5 percent, similar to those for adult women, ! 

but it was not statistically signikant, 

In contrast to the findings for adults, the program had little or no effect on 

the average earnings of female youths (a statistically insignificant earnings 

1 

’ 

loss of $182 or -2.9 percent) and the program actually reduced the 

earnings of male youths, on average, as evidenced by a large, statistically 

significant loss of $854 or -7.9 percent over the l&month period- Access to 

; 

JTPA had no significant effect on the M-month employment rates of either 

female or male youths. \ 

Ckerall, the authors concluded that JTPA appears to have modest positive 

effects on the earnings and employment of adult men and women. I3ut the 

program appears to have had virtually no effect on the earnings and 

employment of female youths and most male youths. In fact, it may have 

had a large negative impact on the earnings of those male youths who had 

been arrested before they applied to JTPA. 

Page 42 GAO/HEI-IS-94-M Multiple Employment Training Programs 
AppemdIx V 

StudieB That Evaluated Program 

Effectiveness: Methodology and Findings 

Title International Trade and Worker Dislocation: Evaluation of the Trade 

AcQustment &4stance Program 

Author and Date 

Program Purpose 

Mathematics Pohcy Research, Inc., April 1993 

The purpose of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program is t41 assist 

workers dislocated by imports to reenter the workforce, 

Methodology The TM program offers Trade Readjustment Ahowances (TR~S) and 

reemployment adjustment services to workers who lose their jobs due to 

increased import competition h-t 1933, as one of several major changes, 

training was made an entitlement for eligible workers and TFLA recipients 

were required to participate in an approved training program. This 

evaluation describes the pre-layoff characteristics and post-layoff labor 

market experience of nationally representative samples of TRA recipients 

who participated in the program either just before or just after the 1988 

program changes. Data on UI exhaustees from mamdacturing industries 

who did not receive TRA are used for comparison purposes. 

Findings The study findings suggested that the training requirement reduced weeks 

of TFU receipt among the average recipient, despite the fact that the 

average duration of training increased. In addition, the training 

requirement led to a decline in the duration of initial joblessness and to an 

increase in earnings due to more rapid employment. 

However, the study concluded that whether training should be mandatory 

for TEU recipients should depend on how successful the training is in 

increasing employment and earnings. According to the study, the fmdmgs 

did not indicate that participating in training had a significant impact on 

the estimated employment and earnings differences of TAA trainees and 

other TRA recipients. The study also did not find strong evidence that 

training had a substantial positive effect on employment and earnings, at 

least in the three years following the initial WI claim. Given the uncertainty 

about the returns of training the evaluation concludes that training should 

be vohmtary rather than mandatory for TF& recipients. 

Page 43 GAWHEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix V 

Studies That Evaluated Program 

Effectiveness: Methodology and Findings 

Title Nationai Evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program 

Author and Date Abt Associates, Inc., and RMC Research Corporation, March 1993 

Program Fbrpose The purpose of the Even Start program is to assist family member 

improve their literacy and, as a result, improve the educational 

opportunities of the children and the skills of the parents. 

MethodoIogy The Even Start Family Literacy Program is intended to improve the 

educational opportunities of children and parents by integrating early 

childhood education for children with adult education for parents. One 

component of the evaluation provides in-depth information on a subset of 

10 selected grantees. At these sites, program participants were randomly 

assigned to treatment or control groups. This component of the evaluation 

focused on short-term outcomes of Even Start for parents and children 

and on the relationship between services received and outcomes. 

Shor--term effects of Even Start were measured in four areas: (1) children, 

(2) parent literacy, (3) parenting skills, and (4) families. The resuks were 

mixed+ 

FIndings Even Start children gained significantly more school-readiness skills than 

the control group, but the results of two other methods used to assess the 

effects of Even Start on children showed no significant program impacts. 

In the area of parent literacy, Even Start showed a clear positive effect on 

GED attainment by program participants. However, measurements in two 

other areas, functional literacy levels on a reading test and reading and 

writing activities in the home, showed no significant program effects. Only 

one of four assessments of Even Start’s effects on parenting skills was 

significant-the number of different reading materials in the home. Across 

measures of the effects of Even Start on participating families, including 

perceived social support and adequacy of f?nancial resources, gains from 

program entry to the end of the first program year were minimal. 

Page 44 GAO/HJZHS-94-88 Multiple EmpIoyment Trahing Programs 
Appendix V 

Studies That Evaluated Program 

Effetivenewx Methodology and Findings 

Title 

Author md Date 

Labor Market Implications of ES Services for Duration of Joblessness, 

Probability of Subsequently Remaining Employed, and Repeated Spells of 

Joblessness: Comparisons of UI Beneficiaries in Pittsburgh and 

Philadelphia, 197~87 

Arnold Katz, Economics Department, University of Pittsburgh Preliminary 

Report for the Upjohn lnstimte of Employment Research 

Program Purpose The purpose of the Employment Service (ES) is to assist individuals, 

including UI claimants, in finding jobs. 

Methodology The study, based on administrative data routinely produced by the 

Pennsylvania w and ES systems, examined the effectiveness of the ES 

system in Pennsylvania, Detailed histories of work, unemployment, and ES 

use of over 100,000 individuals, who registered with ES between 1978 and 

1987, were assemble@ their histories were then compared with the 

histories of a larger sample of nonregistrants, Pennsylvania was selected 

because (1) it has data dating back through a fW business cycle, (2) it has 

a diverse economy, and (3) most important, it is the only state where the 

use of ES i!3 voluntary for IJr claimants. 

Findings The ES had a positive effect on shortening the period of unemployment for ’ 

UI claimants that were considered long-term unemployed. III claimants 1 

who had been unemployed for 30 weeks or more returned to work 9 t 

weeks sooner than they would have had they not used the ES. In 

comparison, IA claimants who had been unemployed for roughly 12 weeks 

only reduced their unemployment, at most, by 2 weeks. The authors 1 

concluded that the shift from a Z-to-9 week reduction in unemployment $ 

suggested that the ES is particularly effective in aiding a relatively small 

segment of the claimants who have trouble fmding work on their own, 

4 

Further, the study shows that most ES users accept jobs after exhausting UI 

benefits, suggesting that jobs obtained through the ES are preferable to 

remaining jobless, but do not compare favorably with jobs held prior to 

becoming unemployed. Thus, the study concludes that the ES primarily 

acts as a backstop to prevent large earnings losses, 

P8ge 46 GAWKEHS-94-88 Tblukiple Employment !l’rahing Programs 
Appendix V 

Sbdies That Evaluated Program 

Effectiveness: Methodology and Findings 

Title Evahration of the Food Stamp Employment and Training Program 

Author and Date Abt Associates, Inc., June 1990 

Program Purpose The purpose of the Food Stamp Employment and Training Program is to 

improve food stamp recipients’ abilily to gain employment and increase 

earnings and to reduce their dependency on public assistance. 

Methodology The evaluation of this program was conducted during fiscal year 1988. The 

evaluation was based upon a classical experimental design involving the 

random assignment of about 13,000 eligible participants to either a 

treatment group, required to enroll in this program, or a control group, 

excluded fi-om program participation. The evaluation was conducted in 53 

separate Food Stamp Agencies in 23 states. The sample was nationally 

representative of the different areas of the country in which the program 

operates, the types of food stamp recipients that participated in this 

program, and the modes of service delivery used in the program, 

FIndings The author concluded that the Food Stamp Employment and Training 

F’rogram was found to have no effect on participants’ employment and 

earnings and only a relatively small effect on the average food stamp 

benefits. In its first full year of operation, the program was not meeting its 

intended objectives of increasing participants’ employment and earnings 

and decreasing their dependence on public assistance, 

Although program participants made substantial gains in employment in 

fiscal year 1988, the extent to which participation had an effect on 

; 

5 

employment must be derived from a comparison of their outcomes with 

those of the control group. The results of this comparison indicate that 

program participation in fiscal year lQ88 had no discernible effect on 

participants’ aggregate earnings, probability of finding work, amount of 

time worked, or average wages, l3y the end of the first year after the 

random assignment, over 50 percent of the program participants had some 

employment during the year; however, this gain is no different from that 

observed for the control group. The report also noted that the types of 

people participating in the program contributed to the questionable effect 

program participation had on their ability to find employment. Nearly 

70 percent did not have children and approximately one-half were single, 

highly mobile adults living alone. Most received no public assistance other 

than food stamps. Thus, the majority of the program participants were 

Page 46 GAO/HF,HS-94-W MnkipIe Eruployment Training Program8 1 

1 
Appendix V 

Studies That Evahated Program 

Effectiveness: Methodology and Fbdhgs 

people who would have been looking for work regardless of the 

requirement to participate in the program. 

In terms of public assistance, the evaluation found an average $65 

reduction in food stamp benefits for program participants over the fmt 

year following certifxation for benefits-about 6 percent of the average 

annual total food stamp benefits paid to participant households. In 

general, individuals assigned to the treatment group received slightly 

smaller benefits per month and spent slightly less time receiving benefits. 

According to the study, these small differences probably reflected the 

program’s effect on a small percentage of participants who either 

voluntarily left the Food Stamp Program sooner than they would have 

otherwise or had their benefits reduced or terminated for noncompliance. 

Page 47 GAWHEHS-94-98 Multiple Employment Training Programa 
Appendix V 

Studies That Evahated Program 

Effectiveness: Methodology and Findinga 

Title Summary of Final Evaluation Findings From Fiscal Year 1989: 

Demonstration Partnership Program Projects. Monograph Series 100-89: 

Case Management Family Intervention Models 

Author and Date U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 

Children and Families, Office of Communily Setices, June 1992 

Program Purpose The purpose of the Community Service Btock Grant demonstration 

projects is to study ways to assist people on welfare to become more 

self-sufficient. 

Methodology and F’indings This study evaluated five case management self-sufXciency initiatives. The ; 

initiatives involved multiple agencies joining together to provide 1 

coordinated services to individuals or families requiring public assistance~ 

Use of these services is brokered or directed by a case manager who is 

responsible for coordinating the care received. Four of the five evaluations $ 

used either a randomized or constructed control group methodology to 

assess the impact of the initiatives. The results from the four evaluations 

using a comparative analysis were mixed 

Family Self-Sufficiency Project: An analysis of mc data comparing the 

study group with two comparison groups across 15 months (April 1990 to 

June 199 1) showed no statistical differences in the average amount of 

assistance received by the families in the three groups. Although the 

proportion of families receiving assistance and the average grant amounts 

for the three groups decreased across time, they decreased equally, 

However, the study concludes that the program clearly was able to 

improve parents’ self-esteem and problem-solving skills, as well as the 

quality of their social relationships, 1 

4 

Self-Sufficiency Phrs: The only documented outcome of the program was i 

in the area of education. The outcome effects for education were small, 

but they consistently pointed towards greater educational attainment by 

those participants who received all of the program’s services. The study 

assumes that the educational advantages achieved by the treatment group 

are precursors of later increased employment and wages, and concludes 

that additional tracking of the participants would be necessary to 

document the ultimate impact of the program. 

Page 48 GAfXHEEIS-94-88 Multiple Employment Tdning Programs 
Appendix V 

Studies That Evahated Program 

Ef‘fectiveneea: Methodology and Findings 

Operation Community Uplift: For two experimental sites, the study 

concluded that on-site interventions were a significsnt factor in increasing 

total family income and nonpublic assistance income. Interestingly, more 

experimental households increased their public assistance income. This 

outcome contrasted with the self-sufficiency goals of the project, but the 

study indicates this is a short-term solution to immediate problems, 

making it possible for people to work on longer term self-sufficiency goals. 

Project HOPE-Headstart Opportunities for Parents Through Employment 

An evaluation conducted at the project operation’s midpoint shows the 

following: a slightly higher percentage of control group members were 

employed, but a significantly larger percentage of experimental group 

members were involved in educational and training activities that had the 

potential for increasing long-term employment opportunities. In addition, 

the unemployment rate (no job or training involvement) of parents in the 

experimental group was one-third of that in the control group. A 

subsequent evaluation attempted at project completion had low response 

rates, which made it difficult to draw statistical conclusions regarding the 

programs’s success. However, based on the limited response, the study 

concludes that the HOPE project was not totally successful in its goal of 

having all participating parents employed by the end of the project. There 

were significantly more employed parents in the control group than in the 

experimental group. But the analysis also showed a significant number of 

parents in the experimental group involved in activities that had the 

potential for rewarding careers. Consequently, the study classified the 

project as a success. 

Page 49 GAWHEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix V 

Studies That Evaluated Program 

Effectiveness: Methodology and Pindings 

Title Summary of Final Evaluation Findings From Fiscal Year 1989: 

Demonstration Partnership Program Projects. Monograph Series 200-89: 

MicroBusiness and Self-Employment 

Author and Date U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 

Children and Families, Office of Community Services, June 1992 

Program Purpose The purpose of the Community Service Block Grant demonstration 

projecm is to study ways to assist people on welfare to become more 

self-sufficient. 

Methodology and Findings These evaluations present the results of four programs designed to help 

low-income people achieve economic self-sufficiency by starting their own 

businesses or pursuing self-employment. These evaluations used either 

random or constructed control groups with which to make comparisons 

with the groups receiving services. On the basis of their analyses, the 

authors of each of these evaluations concluded that the programs were 

generally successful. 

Operation INC (Incubator for New Companies): Data were collected on 

the frequency of business start-ups or funding for both participants and a 

control group. During the 14-month evaluation period, 38 percent of those 

in the experimental group were funded for a business compared with 

33 percent in the control group. Of the 15 businesses started by the 

experimental group, only 1 was unsuccessm. According to the study, the 

experimental group’s business, with its success rate of 93.4 percent, far 

exceeds any national success rate in the general population. 

Partners in Progress: After 24 months, both the participant group and the 

control group were compared and evaluated. According to the study, case 

management services improved employability over a 2-year period, 

Women who received vocational training aIong with case management 

services were more likely to obtain employment than those who did not 

receive these services, although the hourly rate is not higher. Low-income 

women who received entrepreneurial training and case management 

services were more likely to have taken steps toward self-employment 

than low-income women who did not receive these services. 

Page 60 GAO/HEIW94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix V 

Studies That Evaluabd Program 

Effectiveness: Methodology and Fhdings 

Capital Opportunities: Preliminary results of the project show that 

93 percent of the program participants pursued and expanded their 

business ventures, compared with 50 percent of the control group. The 

receipt of a Ioan appeared to increase participants’ sales and 

proportionately increase their personal salaries. On average, the loan 

recipient received less welfaxe assistance per month than the comparison 

group, $1’78 versus $208, Even though the report’s evaluation only 

provided a preliminary assessment of the project, the study concludes that 

the program aided low-income people in pursuing or contmumg their 

business ventures. 

Bright Center Demonstration Partnership Project: At program exit, only 

16 percent of Bright Center participants were unemployed, compared with 

26 percent of the control group. At the 13-week follow-up, Bright Center 

participants who were unemployed decreased to 13 percent, while the rate 

for comparison group members increased to 36 percent, According to the 

study, an examination of the outcomes for 3right Center participants 

indicate the program is successful in providing training and support 

services to low-income women assisting them to achieve self-sufficiency. 

An overview of outcome data supports this conclusion, although the study 

indicates that the small number of control group members made a 

statistically sound comparison impossible. 

Page 61 GAO/HEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix V 

Studies That Evaluated Program 

Effectiveneag: Methodology and Findings 

Title Summary of Final Evaluation Findings from Fiscal Year 1989 

Demonstration Partnership Program Projects. Monograph Series 300-89: 

Homeless Individuals and Families \ 

Author and Date U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 

Children and Families, Office of Community Services, June 1992 

Program Purpose The purpose of the Community Service Block Grant demonstration 

projects is to study ways to assist people on welfare to become more 

self-sufficient, 

Methodology and Findings This study evaluated three projects designed to increase the 

self-sufficiency of the homeless. Two of the projects used control groups 1 

to control for potentially confounding variables, mainly demographic 1 

differences. 1 

Homeless Family Self-Sufficiency Projecti The evaluation compared a 

families with little or moderate case management with families who P 

received intensive case management. Among the fmdings, those families 

who received high case management were significantly more likely to 

move from a condition of no income or dependence on mc benefits to a * 

condition of supporting themselves through a combination of employment 

and benefits. At the time of the evaluation, few families were able to q 

support themselves through employment alone. However, families who ? 

received high levels of case management also appeared to exhibit greater 

positive change in their housing situations. The study concludes that most 

families make positive moves toward self-sufficiency when given some 

support in the form of case management, 

Homeless Employment Partnership: An experimental design was used to 

\ 

evaluate the impacts of the project. Even with the control group having job i 

referral assistance and job search resources at their dispo&, the case 

management clients did much better on identified indicators of 

self-sufficiency. The odds of hating a job in the case management group 

was almost four times as high as in the control group, even when school 

status, race, barriers to employment, and past treatment were held 

constant. Key job benefits, such as health insurance and sick leave, were 

higher for the case management group than the control group. They were 

Page 62 GAOfHEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Program.9 ; 
Appendis V 

Studies That Evaluated Program 

Effectiveness: Methodology axed Findings 

also three times less likely to be homeless. The study concludes that the 

project was successful. 

Page 53 GAO/HEHS-9488 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix V 

Studies That Evaluated Program 

Effectivenewz: Methodology and Findings 

Title Summary of Final Evaluation Findings From Fiscal Year 1989: 

Demonstration Partnership Program Projects. Monograph Series 400-89: 

Early Prevention-High School Youth-at-Risk 

Author and Date U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 

Children and Families, Office of Community Services, June 1992 

Program Purpose The purpose of the Community Service Block Grant demonstration 

projects is to study ways to assist individuaIs on welfare to become more 

self-sufI5cient. 

Methodology and F’indings This study evaluated two projects designed to increase self-esteem, 

improve school performance, and increase the job search and 

performance skills of targeted youth. Both projects used 

quasi-experimental designs in their evaluations. In both projects, local 

community action agencies and the targeted high school were the primary 

agencies. Both programs used as their primary intervention a specialized 

course, designed to improve self-esteem and decision-making skills. 

Although attrition in the control groups made analysis difficult, both 

evaluations concluded that during the life of the project, the experimental 

groups had more improvement in all categories than the control group, 

Partnership for Youth Self-Sufficiency: The results of the evaluation are 

mixed. Among other findings, on average, treatment group students were 

employed more hours per week than comparison group students. Among 

AFDC students, those assigned to the treatment group began with fewer 

hours per week, but surpassed the AFDC students in the control group 

halfway through the first intervention semester. The evaluation also shows 

that students in the treatment group had a greater knowledge of 

preemployment skills than the students in the control group+ However, the 

average wage per hour actualIy declined for both groups of students over 

the tracking periods. No significant gains in grade-point average were 

shown by either the treatment group or control group. In addition, the 

evaluation did not detect any differences in dropout rates between 

students in the treatment and control groups in the initial stage of the 

project. However, later refmements to the intervention may have remedied 

this condition, as early data from the second phase suggest. The study 

concludes that the service model developed and implemented had 

Page 54 GAO/HEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Trainiig Programa 
Appendix V 

Studies That Evaluated Program 

Effectiveness: Methodology and FIndinga 

potential for future adaptation and replication with comparable high-risk 

populations. 

IIigh-Risk Youth Demonstration Project: It was expected that the 

interventions instituted by this project wouId lead to higher self-esteem, 

higher academic achievement, and greater success in the labor market. 

The study concludes that these expectations were clearly met. Although 

not always statistically significant, experimental group students, as 

compared with the control group, showed greater gains over the project 

period in scales used to reflect changes in self-esteem. The experimental 

group also showed greater increases in gradepoint average, attendance, 

units completed, and graduation rate. In addition, the experimental group 

had a dramatically lower dropout rate, and had more success in the labor 

market. 

Page 66 GACWHEHS-M-S8 Multiple Employment Train@ Progranw 
Appellcux v 

Stadie5 That Evalunted Program 

Effectiveness: Methodology ud Pindings 

Title Evaluating JTPA Programs for Economically Disadvantaged Adul& A Case 

Study of Utah and General Findings Research Report 

Author and Date National Commission for Employment Policy, June 1993 

Program Ftu-pose The purpose of the program is to assist the economically disadvantaged to 

find jobs. 

Methodology and F’indings This study compared Utah JTPA II-A adult enrollees in program year 1987 to , 

a comparison group which was constructed using various techniques i?om 

\ 

1 

a random sample of ES registrants who received basic employment 

assistance during program year 1987. Net impacts of the JTPA II-A aduk 

programs were estimated using non-experimental techniques, which 

compared the observed outcomes of program participants with those of 

the Es comparison group. 

FIndings The employment impact estimates for Utah’s Title II-A adult enrollees for 

program year 1987 suggest JTPA participation has a strong positive effect 

on employment for adult men and women who complete more intensive 

training programs and who are placed into fully unsubsidized private 

sector jobs. Participants who completed training and were placed in 

unsubsidized jobs (or were retained by their employers in the case of 

on-the-job training) had a significantly higher likelihood of being employed 

2 years after their original program emollment, Both adult women and 

men were roughIy 10 percent more likely to be employed. In addition, JTPA 

resulted in higher second year earnings, if employed, for those placed 

through more intensive training programs. For adult women, this earnings 

hnpact is stronger for those enrolled in on-thejob training, while for adult 

men it is stronger for those enrolled in classroom training. 

, 

Page 56 GAO/HEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programa ) 
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Agencies 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in the 

report text appear at the 

end of this appendix, 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

33W DEFENSE PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON. DC 203013300 

22 FEB 1994 

See comment I. 

,xouoMK Bmz”“rr” 

Ms. Linda G. Mona 

Director 

Education and Employment Issues 

Health Education and Human Services 

Division 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Dear Ms. Morra: 

This is the Department of Defense (DOD) response to the 

General Accounting Office (GAO) draft report, "MULTIPLE 

EMPLGYMRNT TRAINING PROGRAMS: Most Federal Agencies Do Not Know 

If Their Programs Are Working Effectively,' dated February 3, 

1994 (GAO Code 20524l/DSD Case 9512). The DOD has no comment on 

the information contained in the report, but disagrees with the 

inclusion of the Military Base Reuse Studies and Community 

Planning Assistance Program. 

According to the draft report, the GAO focus was on Federal 

programs that provide employment training assistance to adults 

and out of school youth. The Militaxy Ease Reuse Studies and 

community Planning Assistance Program, however, does not directly 

address employment opportunities or training for individuals. 

Rather, the program does what the title indicates--it helps 

States and local governments w for reuse of closing military 

installations. Planning for reuse of the bnse involves the 

community deciding the best mix of industrial, commercial, 

aviation or residential, public or private use for the property 

that will best suit the needs of the community for economic 

development and jobs or public facilities and open space. The 

DOD tracks employment at a sample of former military installations as means of estimating the redevelopment and new job 

creation experiences of conununities with former military bases. 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to torment on the 

draft report. 

Sincerely, 

Office of Economic Adjustment 

GAO/FiEHS-94-M Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix VI 

Commenta Prom the Agencies 

Page 68 GAO/EEHS-9488 MultipIe Emplopent Training Programa 
Amen* m 

Commenta Fkom the Agencies 

Mlrhll s. sndtll 

Page 69 GAO/HEHS-94-88 MuMpIe Employment Tralnlng Programs 
Appendix Vl 

Commenta Prom the Agencies 

See comment 2. 

See commeflt 3, 

GAO/HEHS-94-W Multiple EmpIoyment Training Programs 
Appendix VI 

Commenta hm the Agendes 

Page 61 GAO/HEIiS-94-88 Multiple Employment !l’ralnhg Programa 
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Agenciea 

Page 62 GAO/HEI-IS-94-68 Muldple Employment Training Programa 
Appendix Vl 

Commenta From the Agencies 

See comment 4. 

Page 63 GAO/HEIIS-94-86 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix VI 

Commenta Prom tie Agencies 

See comment 5. 

Page 64 GAO/EEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Trainin Programa 
Apwndix VI 

Commenta From the Agencies 

See comment 6. 

Page 66 GAOhIEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Trddn6 Progmma 
Appendix VI 

Commenta From the Agencies 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Offke of lnwector Gmemi 

K4R 2894 

ME. Linda G. Morra 

Director, Education 

and Employment Issues 

United States General 

Accounting Office 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Dear Ms. Morra: 

Rncltxed are the Department's comments on your draft report, 

"Multiple Bmployment Training Programs: Most Federal Agencies 

Do Not Know If Their Programs Are Working Effectively.'@ The 

comments represent the tentative position of the Department and 

are subject to reevaluation when the final version of this report 

is received. 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to conunent on this 

draft report before itB publication. 

Sincerely yours, 

ne Gibbs Brown 

nspector General 

Enclosure 

Page 66 GAO/HEMS-94-9.9 Multiple Emploment Training Programs 
AppendixVl 

CommentsFromtheAgencies 

See comment 7. 

See comment 8. 

See comment 9. 

See comment 10. 

OF THE -T OF AND m 

mm ACCOUNTING OFF=- " 

. st Fe&aLwewies Do Not Know 

z Their Pre Are Worm." 

BeDort No. GAO-S-94-M 

Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft report. 

The Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOES) Frogras is 

correctly shown in table format, on page 11 and page 32, as 

having the program monitoring and evaluation found absent in moat 

other listed programs. 

We are concerned that the report's definition of *emplo~ent 

training programsw is too broad to be useful. Many of the 

programs listed do not have employment as a tspecific goal. The 

narrative is brief and sweeping in its criticism of Federal 

programs without acknowledging that employment training is not 

the primary activity of many of these programs. we suggest that 

the General Accountinq Office (GAO) try to categorize the 

programs and concentrate on programs with specific esployment 

training goals in this report. 

In the executive summary on page 2 of the report, GAO states that 

they did not attempt to determine why agencies did not collect 

data on participant outcomes. It would be helpful to have at 

least an initial determination of which programs are required by 

statute or regulation to undertake such activities and to what 

degree these activities are required. 

We disagree that the lack of data on participant outcoMes 

automatically means %ost Federal Agencies Da Not Know If Their 

Programs Are Working Effective1y.s There are numsrous completed 

and ongoing studies that have svaluated program effectiveness and 

have provided sufficient ieedback to give some indication of 

program effectiveness. As part of the report, GAO reviewed many 

of these studies, some of which are sumMarised in Appendix V of 

the report. We are concerned that the title of this report is 

not an accurate reflection of its contents. A better title would 

be **Most Federal Agencies Do Not Collsct Data On Participant 

Achkevements.81 

State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG) is li8tsd in 

Appendix X of the report as one of the Federal prograMs in the 

Department of Health and Human Services which provide employment 

and training. It also includes the full amount of Fiscal Year 

1994 grants to States, suggesting the full grant amount i8 used 

for this purpose. We believe that the draft report in not 

correct on both counts. 

Page67 GAO/HEHS-94-83 Multiple EmploFmentTraiuingPro@ama 
Seecommentll. 

Appendix VI 

Comments From the Agencies 

2 

SLIAG is not in any way an employment or a training program and 

should be deleted from the listing. Even if the program is 

included, it is misleading to list the full amount of granta. 

The program provides funds for public assiatanoe, public health 

atwistance, educational cervices, employment discrimination 

education and outreach, Phase II outreach, SLIAG administrative 

costs and program adminiutrative costs. With regard to adult 

education, the regulations for SLIAG at 45 C.P.R. 402.2 allow 

reimbursement only for adult educational services authorized by 

the Adult Education Act (P. L. 99-750) as in effect November 6, 

1986. Guidance provided by the SLIAG program to States on 

October 21, 1988, indicated that vocational education services 

were not authorized by the Adult Education Act, and therefore 

cannot be paid for with SLIAG funds. 

Three Refugee and Entrant Aseietance programs are also listed: 

Disoretionary Grants, State Adminieterad Prcgrams, and Voluntary 

Agency Programs. These programs offer a wide range of aesietance 

and services including, for example, direct income maintenance, 

services for the aged, and medical translator@. Job placement is 

a major objective of these programs, but m of these nrouraR.9 

ilv an emnlGyRent trv . 

Page68 GAO/JXEl-IS-94-88 Multiple EmploymentTrainingPrograma 
Appendix VI 

Commenta Fkom the Agencies 

See comment 12. 

February 24, 1994 

MS Linda G. Mcrra 

Dirtctor 

J3ducatkm a& Smployment Issuem 

RUman Re80~rcea DiViSim 

U.S. Caneral Accounting Office 

441 G Strmat, K.U. 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Dear Ms. Mona: 

thm wrtunity for urn to Camnt . 

S a we are dimappcinted 

that we were net prwlded the cpportun~ty to conment on theme 

reporta before they uere pubU&ed since they addreoe iameu .thet 

are a central focus of the Dapaz-tmatam majot workforoo 

initiatives. W separate c-2 we &ml1 prcVide ccnmmntm orI 

these repcrts a8 weI1 An order to convey the Department'm 

comprohensiw strategy for dclivm3ng implWnOnt 8nd training 

Eemicau. 

Robe& B. Reich 

Page 69 GAO/HEI-IS-94-88Multiple EmploymentTraining Progrw 
AppendixVI 

CommentsFromthe Agencies E 

Page70 
AppendixW 

CommentskomtheAgenciee 

See comment 13. 

See comment 14. 

Page71 GAO/HEHS-94-88 Multiple EmploymentTrainhgPrograms 
AppendixV1 

CommenlaFrom theAgencies 

See comment 15. 

Now on p. 8. 

Deleted 

See comment 16. 

Page 72 GAO/EEIiS-94-88Multiple EmploymentTraining Programs 
Appendix VL 

Comments From the Agencies 

See comment 17 

See comment 18. 

Page 78 UOIHEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programg 
AppendixVI 

Comments From the Agencies 

Now on pp. 6-7. 

See comment 19. 

See comment 20. 

See comment 21. 

See comment 22. 

See comment 23. 

Page 74 GAWHEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
AppendixVl 

CommentsFromtheAgencies 

See comment 24. 

See comment 25. 

Page76 GAWHEHS-94-89Multlple EmploymentTrahingPrograms 
AppendixvI 

Comments From the Agencies 

See comment 26, 

Now on p, 44. 

See comment 27. 

See comment 28. 

t.MMiEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Traidng Programs 
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Agencies 

Page 77 GAO/HERS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Agencies 

c81L, Inc. 1990. 

I 

1991. 

I 

~FlyAbty 

of tha v af tlm Job 

xathmatioa polioy RUeulsb, 1991. . 

- carmall, 

, lhtlanal 

1989. 

Page 78 GAO/HEHS~94-88 Multipte Employment Training Programs 
Appendix VI 

Commenta From the Agencies 

Page 79 GXVHEHS-94-W Multiple Employment Training Programs 
AppendixVI 

Commenta From the Agencies 

VWITED STATE8 

OFFICS OF PERSONNEL HAnACtEYENT 

w*6luIYo**PI. D.C. 10416 

Mm. Linda C. Morra 

Director, Education and 

Employment Iseuee 

Human Resourcea Division 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 0 Street, NW., Suite 650 

Washington, DC 20540 

Dear Ms. Morra: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the recent General 

Accounting Office rmport, "Multiple Employment Training 

Programs. ‘1 

We have read the report and have no commenta. 

/ 

Page80 GANHEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programa 
Appendix VI 

Commenta From the Agencies 

See comment 29. 

February 25, 1994 

Ms. Linda G. Morra 

Director, Education and Employment issues 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Dear Ms. Morra: 

The Department of Transportation offers the foitowing comment regarding the 

General Accounting Offtce (GAO) drafl report titled “Multiple Employment Training 

Programs: Most Federal Agencies Do Not Know If Their Programs Are Working 

Effectively,” HEHS-94-88. 

Appendix I, page 23 of the draft report shows one program for the Department of 

Transportation identified as “Human Resource Programs,” with planned funding for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 1994 of $1.5 million. We understand from discussions with your 

staff that this ottatlon is intended to represent training programs for the 

disadvantaged conducted by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) under 

Section 20 of the Federal Transit Act as amended (49 U.S.C. app. 1616). We have 

concluded that the $1.5 million funding shown In the chart is actually the FY 1993 

funding level for all human resource programs conducted by FTA. Only a portion of 

these funds were devoted to job training for the economically disadvantaged. For 

FY 1994, the proposed funding level is $700,000 for the FTA’s human resources 

program, with about $500,000 directed at job training for the economically 

disadvantaged. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this report. if you have any questions 

concerning our reply, please contact Martin Gertel on 202-366-5145. 

Sincerely, 

k I? AL) rb: 

J n t-i. Seymour 

Page 81 GANHEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Agencies 

GAO Comments 

1 

The following are GAO’S comments on the letters received from the 

Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Health 1 

and Human Services, Department of Labor, the Office of Personnel 1 

Management, and the Department of Transportation. 

Department of Defense 1. The Department of Defense disagreed with the inclusion of the Military 

Base Reuse Studies and Community Planning Assistance Program in our 

analysis. This program is designed to help state and local governments 

plan for the economic reuse of closing military installations so as to best 

suit the community’s need for economic development and jobs. We believe 

this program also fits our criteria in that its goal is to enhance economic 

development and employment opportunities. To clarify what types of 

programs were included in the scope of our work, we have modified the 

description of our criteria. 

Department of Education 2. The Department of Education expressed concern that it had not been 

given the opportunity to comment on our previous reports concerning 

multiple employment and training programs. For the testimony given June 

l&1993, and the reports issued January 28,1994, the requesters 

specifically asked that we not obtain comments from affected agencies. 

Because this report identifies which programs collected participant 

outcome data or conducted effectiveness studies, the requester agreed to 

provide affected agencies the opportunity to comment. 

3. The Department of Education expressed concern that the report does 

not reflect the Department’s recent initiatives to address deficiencies in 

the collection of outcome data. We recognize that the Department has 

several ongoing initiatives. However, because these initiatives were in the 

early planning phases, we had no basis for determining the extent to which 

these initiatives would overcome deficiencies in the collection of program 

outcome data. As for the six evaluations identified by the Department, the 

study of the Even Start Program was already included in our listing of 

studies shown in appendix IV. We have modified the title so that it can be 

more easily identified. We also added the National Assessment of 

Vocational Education to our listing, although we determined that the study 

does not use a comparative analysis approach and could not be 

categorized as looking at program effectiveness. The other four identified 

studies are still under way and could not be analyzed for inclusion in our 

listing; however, we have added them to our footnote of ongoing studies. 

Page 82 GAOAEHS-94-68 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix VI 

Comment9 From the Agencies 

4. The Department of Education objected to the inclusion of six programs 

in our analysis-Even Start, Upward Bound, Talent Search, Student 

Support Services, Education Opportunity Centers, Vocational Education 

State-Administered, and Cooperative Demonstration. We included these 

programs in our analysis because they meet our criteria of providing 

assistance that enhances skills or employment opportunities. We have 

clarified the criteria used in determining which programs would be 

included in our analysis. We recognize that the primary purpose of these 

programs may not have been to provide employment training assistance; 

however, the assistance provided does help participants improve skills 

that meet our criteria. 

5. The Department also raised questions concerning specific data shown in 

appendixes II and III regarding the Women’s Educational Equity Program. 

We have revised appendixes II and III to show this program does collect 

participant outcome data on skill attainment and does monitor financial 

activities. The Department of Education also expressed concern that the 

report does not reflect data collected by the National Center for 

Educational Statistics concerning Vocational Education Programs. While 

the National Center for Educational Statistics does gather data on all 

vocational education programs, through a national sample, these data are 

only useful on a national level and cannot provide program administrators 

information on what happened to participants in a specific program, We 

agree that this information is a valuable source of data for the Congress 

and other policymakers, but it does not provide the specific data needed to 

track participant outcomes from a specific program. We have footnoted 

appendix II to indicate that our analysis does not include data collected by 

the National Center for Educational Statistics. 

6, The Department of Education expressed concern that the report does 

not reflect that some programs are state administered. We recognize that 

some programs are state administered and have modified language in the 

report to show that for some programs, federal program administrators 

can only make suggestions to improve programs, but they cannot make 

specific changes at the local level. However, we believe the Department 

has overall responsibility for managing its programs and assuring that 

programs get the most from the federal funds invested. 

Page 83 GAO/HEHS-94-38 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix VI 

Comments Prom the Agencies 

Department of Health and 

Human Services 

7. The Department of Health and Human Services expressed concern that 

the criteria for programs included in the analysis were too broad and 

included many programs that do not have employment as a specific goal. 

The criteria we used were quite broad because state and local projects 

often use resources from a wide range of programs to provide assistance 

to participants, particularly to enhance basic skills, including literacy and 

math. To fully understand the breadth of the problems involved in 

coordinating such activities, we have included all the programs that 

provide such assistance to adults and out-of-school youth. 

8. The Department noted that we did not attempt to determine why 

agencies did not collect data on participant outcomes. We agree that it 

would have been good to have obtained information from agencies on why 

they did not obtain participant outcome data; however, because of the 

number of agencies and offices involved in the administration of the 

programs in our analysis, we were not able to obtain this information. 

9. The Department disagreed with our conclusion that most federal 

agencies do not know if their programs are working effectively. They point 

to the large number of studies listed in our report as evidence that 

agencies are getting some feedback on their programs The conclusion of 

our report is not based solely on the lack of participant outcome data, but 

also on the lack of effectiveness studies that compare participant 

outcomes with outcomes of similar nonparticipants. Few of the studies 

listed in appendix IV were effectiveness studies by our definition. 

10. The Department of Health and Human Services questioned the 

inclusion of the State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants in our 

analysis. We agree that the primary purpose of the State Legalization 

Impact Assistance Grants is not to provide employment training; however, 

the program does provide assistance that could enhance participants’ 

basic skills and make them more employable, which meets our criteria for 

inclusion in our analysis. We recognize that not all the funds proposed for 

this program will go to provide basic skills, and, when possible, we have 

@usted the level of funding to show only the amount that would be spent 

for these types of services. In this case, we were unable to obtain 

information on how much of the proposed funding would be used for this 

purpose. We have expanded the footnote to appendix I to reflect that 

while some amounts shown have been adjusted to show only the portion 

of the proposed budget that goes to serving adults and out-of-school 

youth, other programs are shown in full, even though only a portion of the 

Page 84 GAO/HERS-94-88 Multiple Employment Trdnlng Programs 1 
Appendix VI 

Comments Prom the Agencies 

program funding may go to providing employment training assistance as 

defined in the report. 

11. The Department also questioned the inclusion of three Refugee and 

Entrant Assistance programs. The Department recognizes that job 

placement is a major objective of these programs, but they state that it is 

not the primary purpose of the program. As stated previously, we have 

included those programs in our analysis that provide assistance to 

participants that enhance their employability or employment opportunities 

regardless of whether it is the primary purpose of the program. These 

programs meet these criteria. 

Department of Labor 12. The Department of Labor expressed disappointment in not being 

provided the opportunity to comment on two earlier reports concerning 

multiple employment training programs. As previously stated, the 

requesters for these reports specifically asked that we not obtain 

comments from affected agencies. We welcome any comments the 

Department may have concerning these reports. 

13. The Department of Labor questioned the inclusion of five programs in 

our analysis-‘rx.4, two funding streams that support the ES, and two pilot 

and demonstration programs. They expressed concern that the TAA 

program and the ES funding streams are not designed to focus on the 

economically disadvantaged and do not have income-eligibility 

requirements. Our analysis includes any program that provides 

employment training assistance to the economically disadvantaged. We 

recognize that these programs may not focus specifically on the 

economically disadvantaged; however, many economically disadvantaged 

people receive such assistance from these programs. Therefore, we 

believe these programs should be included in our analysis. The 

Department states that the two other programs are not designed to 

provide assistance, but, rather, to pilot and test innovative approaches. We 

believe that while in the process of piloting and testing approaches, these 

programs also provide participants assistance that meet our criteria and, 

therefore, we have included them in our analysis. 

14. The Department of Labor identified the Homeless Veterans 

Reintegration Project as a program that should have been included in our 

analysts. We agree that this program appears to serve the economically 

disadvantaged and should have been included in our analysis. In compiling 

information on all the programs funded by the federal government that 

Page 86 GAO/HEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Agencies 

provide employment training assistance to the economically 

disadvantaged, we inadvertently omitted this program. We have noted its 

omission in appendix I. 

15. The Department of Labor suggests that we may have understated the 

amount of outcome information collected by agencies because it 

mistakenly linked collection of data with monitoring activities. Our 

analysis of agency collection of outcome data is based on two approaches: 

(1) outcome information gathered through reporting systems as discussed 

on page 5 and shown in figure 1, and (2) outcome information obtained 

during on-site monitoring visits. We agree that the collection of outcome 

data is more often accomplished through reporting systems, but our 

analysis shows that only about half of the programs collect outcome data 

through reporting systems, which the Department described. 

16. The Department of Labor noted that our reference to the monitoring 

guide for the Homeless Demonstration Program did not take into 

consideration the quarterly outcome data reported by all grantees of the 

program. As shown in appendix II, we recognize that the Homeless 

Demonstration Program does collect outcome data. We have deleted the 

reference to this program in our example. 

17. The Department of Labor expressed concern that we used a narrow 

definition of effectiveness studies. We agree that the definition used in our 

analysis is strict. However, random assignment is the only statistically 

valid method for truly knowing whether a treatment is effective. We agree 

it is expensive, difficult to execute, and does deny potentially beneficial 

treatment. We have added language to the report to reflect these concerns. 

The Department also listed several “effectiveness-related” studies, which 

they identified as being useful to their program managers in learning how 

their programs are working. We found that many of the studies listed were 

included in our listing as well. The other studies listed probably were very 

useful to program managers as were many of the other studies identified in 

our analysis. However, these studies do not appear to meet our criteria of 

an effectiveness study. We are not suggesting that only comparative 

studies should be conducted or that other approaches do not provide 

useful information. We are only pointing out that the number of studies 

that evaluate the effectiveness of programs using a comparative analysis 

approach is very limited. We have added language to the report to indicate 

the benefit of other study approaches, 

Page 86 GAWHEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Agencies 

18. The Department of Labor expressed concern that GAO'S analysis did not 

differentiate between the types and sizes of programs. Our analysis of data 

collection, monitoring, and program effectiveness studies showed that 

larger programs were no more likely to collect outcome data than smaller 

programs. Larger programs were more likely to have conducted studies of 

program effectiveness; however, the programs studied only accounted for 

16 percent of the total proposed funding for the 15 programs with 

proposed budgets over $100 million, 

19. The Department of Labor commented that we suggest the desirability 

of linking data on participant outcomes with participant characteristics 

and training provided, but the Department questioned whether such 

linkages can be established for all programs. The Department states that 

limited resources would preclude such a system in smaller programs. 

While we believe the linkage of participant outcomes with training 

provided and participant characteristics is an important way of 

determining what factors may be infIuencing program outcomes, we did 

not suggest that every program had the resources to establish such 

information, However, the Department’s concern that smaller programs 

may not have the resources to collect data needed to evaluate program 

performance raises a question as to whether we can afford to invest in 

many smaller programs that do not have sufficient resources to evaluate 

their own performance. 

20. The Department of Labor raised several questions concerning the list 

of programs and funding streams that support assistance that enhances 

participant skills or employment opportunities. F’irst, the Department 

questioned why we listed the JTPA IIA and IIC State Education Programs 

separately. The Department states that this is one set-aside program that is 

funded from two sources. Because we are listing each funding stream 

separately, we listed the JTPA IIA program separately from the JTPA IIC 

program. Our understanding is that state officials must track their funding 

separately for each funding stream, which can create unnecessary 

administrative costs when the two programs are viewed as one program. 

The Department also questioned the funding data for the JTPA Title III 

EDWAA program. According to the budget submission dated April 8,1993, 

the proposed funding for the Title III EDWAA program was $573.7 million. 

The additional dislocated worker funding was requested as a part of the 

President’s initiative to consolidate employment training for all dislocated 

workers regardless of the cause of dislocation. This proposal has been 

delayed, but additional funding for dislocated workers was approved. We 

have added a footnote to appendix I to show the significant increase in 

Page 87 GAOIHEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Appendix VI 

Commenta Prom the Agencies 

funding for dislocated workers. The Department also pointed out that the 

JTPA Title III EDWAA funding goes to substate areas not SIMS. We have 

changed the designation in our report to show substate areas. The 

Department also provided updated funding information on several other 

programs. As stated previously, the funding shown in appendix I is 

primarily from the President’s proposed budget, dated April 8,1993, and 

does not reflect the actual funding levels approved by the Congress. 

21, The Department suggested a correction for a note in appendix I 

concerning the funding for the Clean Air Act. We have corrected the 

footnote. 

22. The Department questioned why we showed JTPA Title IIA and Title IIC 

in appendix I and did not show them separately in appendix II. Appendix I 

shows proposed funding levels for fiscal year 1994. The budget for JTPA is 

for program year 1994, starting July 1,1994, after the separation of the 

disadvantaged adult and youth programs into separate titles. However, 

appendix II, which shows the extent to which agencies collected outcome 

data, is based on data collected prior to the programs being separated. The 

same is true for appendixes III and Iv. Other studies of JTPA, such as the 

Abt Associates, Inc., which was published after Titles IIA and IIC programs 

were separated, still refer to the programs jointly. We have footnoted 

appendives II, IlI, and IV to show that the programs were separated after 

July 1,1993. 

23. The Department of Labor advised us that the JTPA IL4 Incentive Grant 

Program does collect outcome data on participant skill attainment. The 

Department also advised us that the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program 

collects participant outcome data on employment status, skill attainment, 

and wage levels. We have corrected appendix II to reflect the outcome 

data collected by these programs. 

24. The Department of Labor reported that through its regional offices, it 

conducts ongoing reviews of JTPA IIA Incentive Program outcomes by state 

and local SDA. The Department also stated that the Job Training for the 

Homeless Demonstration Program monitors participant outcomes. We 

have changed appendix III to show this information. 

25. The Department of Labor pointed out that a study shown in appendix 

IV under Job Corps should have been listed under the JOBS program. We 

have corrected this error. 

Page 88 GAO/HEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs , 
Appendix VI 

Commentm From the Agencies 

26. The Department has suggested that we include the Homeless Veterans 

Reintegration Project in our analysis of effectiveness studies shown in 

appendix IV. Because the program was inadvertently omitted from our 

analysis, we do not believe it would be appropriate to include it in one 

section of our work without including it in all sections. Without further 

review of the study, prepared by Technical Assistance Corporation, 

concerning this program, we could not be sure it had been categorized 

correctly, 

27. The Department of Labor expressed concern that our summary of the 

Mathematics study of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program was 

taken out of context. We have amended our summary to include more 

information on the Mathematics study. 

28. The Department of Labor questioned our summary of a study of the 

JTPA program in Utah. We have replaced the summary with the correct one. 

Department of 

Transportation 

29. The Department of Transportation raised a question similar to that of 

several other agencies concerning the funding information in appendix I. 

We have added a footnote to appendix I, as well as in the text of the 

report, to show the source of our information was primarily the 

President’s proposed budget dated, April 8,1993. We have also footnoted 

appendix I to show that when information was available, the amounts 

shown have been adjusted to reflect only that portion of the program that 

served adults and out-of-school youth; however, in other instances, the 

funding level shown is for the full program, even though only a portion of 

the funding may go to providing employment training as defined in this 

report. 

Page 89 GAO/EEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Trrrining Programs 
Appendix VII 

Major Contributors to This Report 

Clarence Crawford, Associate Director, (202) 512-7014 

Robert Rogers, Assistant Director, (313) 256-8011 

Donna Bright Howard 

Robert Hill 

James Owczarzak 

Sara Peth 

Kathleen Ward 

Page 90 GAWHEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Page 91 CAO/HEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programs 
Related GAO Products 

(205241) 

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements 

Hamper Delivery of Services (GAOiHEHS94-78, Jan. 1994); 

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Can Add 

Unnecessary Administrative Costs (GAomEHS94-80, Jan. 1994); 

Multiple Employment Programs: National Employment Strategy Needed 

(GAOm-HRD-9327, June 18, 1993); 

The Job Training Partnership Act: Potential for Program Improvements 

But National Job Training Strategy Needed (GAOIT-~~~3-18, Apr. 29,1993); 

Multiple Employment Programs (GAO/Hm93-26R, June 15,1993); 

Multiple Employment Programs (GAO/HRB9239R, July 24,1992), 

Page 92 GAMIEHS-94-88 Multiple Employment Training Programa 
Ordering-Information 

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. 

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the 

following address, accompanied by a check or money order 

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when 

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be maiIed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders by mail: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

P.O. Box 6016 

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 

or visit: 

Room 1000 

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066. 

PRINTED O?j RECYCL&D PAPER