Report to Congressional Committees

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 

September 2006 NATIONAL 

EMERGENCY 

GRANTS 

Labor Has Improved 

Its Grant Award 

Timeliness and Data 

Collection, but 

Further Steps Can 

Improve Process 

GAO-06-870 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-870.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at 

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

Highlights of GAO-06-870, a report to 

congressional committees 

September 2006

NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANTS

Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award 

Timeliness and Data Collection, but 

Further Steps Can Improve Process 

We found that Labor’s new electronic application system has, on average, 

shortened award processing time and most national emergency grants were 

awarded within Labor’s goal of 30 working days as measured by GAO—from 

the time the application is submitted to the issuance of the award letter. In 

program year 2004, Labor averaged 25 working days to award grants, in 

contrast to program years 2000-2002, when it averaged 50 working days. 

Moreover, in program year 2004, Labor awarded 70 percent of all grants 

within 30 working days, in contrast to 38 percent for program years 2000-

2002. Although Labor has improved the overall timeliness for awards, award 

times ranged from 1 to 90 working days and varied by type of grant. For 

example, disaster grants were awarded, on average, in 16 days, but regular 

grants were awarded, on average, in 45 days. Delays in obtaining funds 

adversely impacted some grantees’ ability to provide services. Also, we 

found that Labor’s electronic application system and its timeliness goal did 

not capture every phase of the award process. In addition, users of this 

system reported some technical problems. 

Labor has taken steps to improve its two main sources of data for assessing 

how grant funds are used—the quarterly progress reports and the Workforce 

Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) database. Labor 

introduced a new electronic quarterly report system in program year 2004. 

Since then, grantees have generally been submitting uniform and consistent 

information. Also, our review of available WIASRD data for program year 

2004 shows that at least 92 percent of states that received national 

emergency grants included information on these grants in their WIASRD 

submissions. 

Labor’s regional offices oversee each project to track performance and 

compliance with program requirements by conducting various monitoring 

activities, including approving program operating plans, reviewing quarterly 

progress reports, and conducting site visits. However, Labor has not issued 

complete, program-specific guidance that would standardize monitoring 

practices across regions, states, and local areas and help ensure consistent 

practices. In addition, officials in most of the states and local areas we 

visited said that Labor does not regularly help disseminate information about 

how states and local areas are managing their national emergency grant 

projects. 

Average Time Taken to Award Grants (Program Years 2000-2002 and 2004) 

 

Between January 2004 and 

December 2005, more than 30,000 

mass layoffs involving 50 or more 

workers occurred in the United 

States, causing more than 3.4 

million workers to lose their jobs. 

National emergency grants expand 

services to laid-off workers when 

other state and federal programs 

are insufficient to meet their needs. 

GAO assessed (1) whether Labor 

has shortened grant award times 

since GAO’s 2004 report and was 

meeting own timeliness goal, (2) 

the uniformity of the program data 

that Labor now collects, and (3) 

Labor’s oversight of national 

emergency grant projects. To 

address these objectives, GAO 

analyzed information for program 

year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of 

2005 and compared it with data 

collected for program years 2000-

2002. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Labor take 

steps to (1) extend its electronic 

application system to capture the 

entirety of the award process 

through final approval and issuance 

of award letters, (2) solicit 

information from users of the 

application system to guide future 

refinements to this system, (3) 

distribute more complete guidance 

and tools for monitoring grant 

projects, and (4) explore costeffective ways to disseminate 

information to states and local 

areas to help them learn about 

promising practices for managing 

national grant projects. Labor 

generally agreed with these 

recommendations. 
Page i GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 6 

Labor Has Shortened Award Times, but Does Not Track the Entire 

Award Process 12 

Labor Has Made Progress in Collecting More Uniform Program 

Data 19 

Labor Monitors Projects for Compliance with Basic Program 

Requirements, but Some States Reported That Better Guidance 

Is Needed 21 

Conclusions 24 

Recommendations for Executive Action 25 

Agency Comments 25 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 28 

Timeliness Assessment 28 

Analysis of Program Data 29 

Assessment of Data Quality 29 

Interviews with Labor Officials 29 

Site Visits 30 

Appendix II Summary of Funds Awarded for Regular, Disaster, 

and Dual Enrollment Grants during Program 

Year 2004 31 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Labor 33 

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 36 

Related GAO Products 37 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Tables 

Table 1: Average Time to Award Grants by Quarter in Which 

Application Was Received (Program Years 2000-2002 and 

Program Year 2004) 16 

Table 2: Number and Percent of Quarterly Progress Reports 

Provided by Quarter Awarded (Program Year 2004) 19 

Table 3: Information Contained in Progress Reports 20 

Table 4: Number of States That Submitted Data to WIASRD 21 

Table 5: Number of National Emergency Grants Awarded and Used 

in GAO Analysis 28 

Table 6: Number of Grants Received during Program Year 2004 and 

the First 2 Quarters of Program Year 2005 30 

Figures 

Figure 1: Funding Reserved from the Dislocated Worker Allotment 

for the Secretary of Labor 6 

Figure 2: Distribution of National Emergency Grant Funds 

(Program Year 2004) 10 

Figure 3: Percentage of Funds Awarded by Type of Grant (Program 

Years 2000 –First 2 Quarters of 2005) 11 

Figure 4: Average Time Taken to Award National Emergency 

Grants (Program Years 2000-2002 and Program Year 2004) 13 

Figure 5: Percent of Grants Awarded Within 30 Days by Project 

Type (Program Year 2004) 14 

Figure 6: Differences between How GAO and Labor’s Electronic 

Application System Track the National Emergency Grant 

Award Process 18 
Page iii GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Abbreviations 

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure 

ETA Employment and Training Administration 

ONR Office of National Response 

WIA Workforce Investment Act 

WIASRD Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data

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

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

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

September 5, 2006 

The Honorable Arlen Specter 

Chairman 

The Honorable Tom Harkin 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, 

 Education, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Ralph Regula 

Chairman 

The Honorable David R. Obey 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, 

 Education, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

Between January 2004 and December 2005, the United States experienced 

more than 30,000 mass layoffs involving 50 or more workers, with more 

than 3.4 million workers losing their jobs. These losses affected all types of 

workers—including those working in the professional, service, 

information processing, and manufacturing sectors—in every state in the 

nation. To help supplement regular dislocated worker funding, the 

Department of Labor (Labor) administers the National Emergency Grant 

program. Authorized under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, 

national emergency grants provide temporary employment, training 

assistance, and other supports to workers whose jobs were lost because of 

major economic dislocations, such as plant closings or natural disasters, 

such as floods and hurricanes. Dislocated workers can obtain temporary 

employment performing clean-up activities after natural disasters, or 

training—such as working with computers—to obtain the skills needed to 

re-enter the workforce in a new occupation following a layoff. These 

grants are time-limited discretionary awards to help states and local areas 

provide employment and training services when basic formula WIA funds 

are insufficient to meet the needs of dislocated workers. 

In program year 2004—which began on July 1, 2004, and ended on June 30, 

2005—and the first 2 quarters of program year 2005—July 1, 2005, to 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

December 31, 2005—Labor awarded about $342 million in grant funds 

($232 million for program year 2004 and $110 million for the first 

2 quarters of program year 2005). Most of these funds were provided as 

disaster grants for victims of hurricanes and floods. Grantees used these 

funds to provide temporary employment and humanitarian aid such as 

water and other necessities to individuals who lost their jobs as a result of 

these natural disasters. In addition, about $30 million of program year 2004 

funds were awarded to help states and localities mitigate anticipated job 

losses from military base realignments and closures. These base 

realignment and closure (BRAC) grants funded activities to help states 

initiate early community planning to provide assistance to large numbers 

of workers who might lose their jobs due to BRAC decisions. In addition, 

regular national emergency grants provided training, often through 

community colleges, and support services, such as psychological or 

financial counseling, for workers unemployed due to mass layoffs. 

In April 2004, we reported that services to dislocated workers were being 

affected by delays in awarding national emergency grants in program years 

2000 through 2002. 1

 We identified weaknesses in Labor’s processing and 

management of national emergency grants, particularly with respect to the 

timeliness with which they were awarded and the quality of data collected 

regarding how grant funds were being used. In light of these problems, 

Congress mandated that we examine the program’s current 

administration. Our objectives were to (1) determine whether Labor has 

shortened grant award times since our 2004 report and has been able to 

meet its own goal for awarding grants in 30 working days, (2) examine the 

uniformity of the program data that Labor is currently collecting, and 

(3) assess Labor’s monitoring and oversight of national emergency grant 

projects. To obtain national information on Labor’s application processing, 

data collection, and monitoring activities, we collected and analyzed 

information on grants awarded in program year 2004 and the first 

2 quarters of program year 2005. We examined grants from this time 

period because program year 2004 was the first year that Labor 

implemented a new electronic application system designed to improve 

grant award timeliness. We calculated the number of days it took Labor to 

award grants from the grantees’ perspective. We began counting on the 

day the application was submitted and ended on the day the award letter 

 1

GAO, National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve Award 

Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant Awards and Improve Data, 

GAO-04-496 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2004). 
Page 3 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

was sent by Labor. We then compared our findings with the results of our 

prior study to determine if there were changes in processing time. To 

assess the quality of the data that Labor currently collects, we interviewed 

officials in headquarters and examined quarterly progress reports to 

determine the completeness and uniformity of this information. We 

assessed the reliability of Labor’s data and concluded they were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. We also examined 

official grant files and reviewed relevant program documents. We 

conducted site visits in four states (Florida, Maine, Oregon, and Texas). 

We chose these states because they received substantial national 

emergency grant funding in program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of 

program year 2005; represented different geographical regions; and 

received grants addressing a variety of dislocation events, including plant 

closings, natural disasters, out-sourcing, and military base realignments. 

To evaluate Labor’s monitoring activities, we conducted semi-structured 

interviews with state and local officials involved in monitoring and 

regional office officials in four of Labor’s six regional offices that are 

responsible for monitoring national emergency grants. We selected these 

regions because they monitored activities in the states that we visited. See 

appendix I for a detailed discussion of our scope and methodology. Our 

work was conducted between September 2005 and July 2006 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

In program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of program year 2005, we 

found that, on average, Labor had shortened award processing time 

compared with program years 2000-2002, and as a result, workers 

generally received services in a more timely manner. In July 2004, Labor 

implemented a new electronic application system and streamlined the 

amount of information applicants are required to submit. Both of these 

actions helped Labor improve grant award timeliness and, on average, 

meet its 30-working-day processing goal as we measured it—from the date 

the application was submitted to the date the approval letter was sent. 

Labor averaged 25 working days to award grants during program year 

2004, while during program years 2000-2002 the average was 50 working 

days. Similarly, the average time to award both regular and disaster 

national emergency grants was shorter in program years 2004 and the first 

2 quarters of 2005 than during the prior period. Moreover, in program year 

2004, Labor awarded 70 percent of all grants within its goal of 30 working 

days. In contrast, in program years 2000-2002, only 38 percent were 

awarded in 30 working days. Similarly, in the first 2 quarters of 2005, Labor 

averaged 21 working days and awarded 67 percent of the grants within its 

30-working-day goal—almost all of which were disaster grants related to 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Hurricane Katrina. While Labor has improved the overall timeliness for 

grant awards, challenges remain. For example, in program year 2004, 

award times ranged from 1 to 90 working days and differed by type of 

grant, with disaster grants for workers dislocated due to national disasters 

taking 16 working days on average and regular national emergency grants 

for workers dislocated due to plant closings taking 45 working days on 

average. As a result, within 30 working days, Labor awarded 91 percent of 

disaster grants, but only 16 percent of regular grants. In addition, we found 

that Labor’s electronic application system does not capture every phase of 

the award process. Specifically, it excludes the time needed to obtain the 

Secretary’s approval and issue award notification letters to grantees, 

which added 11 additional working days, on average, to the process in 

2004. Thus, while grants are, on average, being awarded more quickly than 

in the past, Labor’s electronic application system and its process for 

measuring timeliness do not fully capture the total time taken to award 

grants. 

Labor has taken steps to improve its two main sources of data for 

assessing how grant funds are used—the quarterly progress reports and 

the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD). In 

program year 2004, Labor issued guidance to state workforce agencies 

requiring them to submit progress report data electronically. Also in that 

year, Labor introduced an electronic progress report system that 

standardized the data elements collected in progress reports. We found 

that grantees have generally been submitting uniform and consistent 

information since the new system was introduced. In addition, most 

quarterly reports were submitted within the required time frames. These 

reports generally provided complete information on data elements that 

describe the use of funds, including the types of projects funded, the 

numbers of participants receiving services, and the total expenditures at 

the grantee and project level. Labor also issued guidance on WIASRD in 

August 2004 that it uses to track the employment status and wages of 

individuals who participated in grant projects. This guidance was intended 

to clarify to state and local workforce agencies that they are required to 

submit data on national emergency grant participants to WIASRD. Our 

analysis and interviews with state and local officials suggest that the 

guidance has generally been effective in helping states include data on 

national emergency grants in their WIASRD submissions. For example, our 

review of available WIA data for program year 2004 showed that this 

database contains information for 44 of the 48 states that received national 

emergency grants and were subject to WIA reporting requirements. 
Page 5 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Labor oversees national emergency grant projects by monitoring states 

and local areas for compliance with basic program rules, but many state 

and local officials we interviewed said they would like to see Labor collect 

and disseminate information from other states and local areas on 

promising practices for grant management. Labor’s regional offices, which 

have primary responsibility for oversight, carry out a variety of activities to 

monitor grants, including conducting internal risk assessments, reviewing 

project operating plans, and assessing financial and quarterly progress 

reports. Regional officials also periodically visit state grantees and project 

sites to assess their program and financial management, examine case 

files, and ensure that services—such as temporary employment for 

dislocated workers to clean up after natural disasters—are being 

delivered. While the state and local officials we interviewed generally said 

that Labor’s oversight activities were beneficial, these officials said they 

lacked complete, program-specific guidance that could help them more 

efficiently coordinate with Labor and conduct their own monitoring 

activities. Labor has developed a draft monitoring tool for this program, 

but has only distributed it to three of the four regional offices included in 

our study for their use in site visits. Labor has yet to finalize the tool and 

formally distribute it to state and local officials. Many of the officials we 

interviewed told us they would benefit from such a tool. In addition to 

more specific guidance on monitoring responsibilities, some state and 

local grant recipients reported that they could benefit from information on 

promising practices in other states and localities for effectively managing 

grant projects and providing aid to dislocated workers. They noted, 

however, that Labor does not currently facilitate opportunities for 

disseminating such information to grantees. 

To further improve its management of the national emergency grant 

process, we are recommending that Labor extend its electronic 

application system and its timeliness measurement process to capture the 

entirety of the award process from the perspective of grant applicants, 

specifically through final approval and issuance of award letters by the 

Secretary. We are also recommending that Labor solicit information from 

users of the application system to guide future refinements to this system. 

In addition, we are recommending that Labor distribute more complete 

guidance and tools for monitoring grant projects and explore costeffective ways to disseminate information to states and local areas to help 

them learn about promising practices for managing national grant 

projects. In its comments, Labor generally agreed with our 

recommendations. 
Page 6 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

WIA authorizes the National Emergency Grant program and funds the 

program through its dislocated worker funding stream. This funding 

stream is one of three specified by WIA to fund services for its client 

groups—dislocated workers, youth, and adults. Dislocated workers 

include individuals who have been terminated or laid off, or who have 

received a notice of termination or layoff, individuals who were selfemployed but are unemployed as a result of general economic conditions 

in the community or natural disasters, and unemployed or underemployed 

homemakers who are no longer supported by family members. Under 

WIA, the Secretary of Labor retains 20 percent of dislocated worker funds 

in a national reserve account to be used for national emergency grants, 

demonstrations, and technical assistance and allots the remaining funds to 

each of the states, local workforce boards, and other entities that 

demonstrate to the Secretary the capacity to respond to the circumstances 

relating to particular dislocations. Of the amount reserved by the Secretary 

in any program year, at least 85 percent of the Secretary’s national reserve 

must be used for national emergency grants (see fig. 1). During program 

year 2004, this amount was approximately $232 million and $110 million2

during the first 2 quarters of program year 2005, for a total of $342 million. 

Figure 1: Funding Reserved from the Dislocated Worker Allotment for the Secretary 

of Labor 

 2

At the time of our review, data were available for only the first 2 quarters of program year 

2005. 

Background 
Page 7 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

National emergency grants expand WIA services that are available to 

dislocated workers when dislocated worker formula funds are insufficient 

to meet the needs of affected workers. Under WIA, dislocated workers can 

receive three levels of services—core, intensive, and training. Core 

services include job search and placement assistance, preliminary skill 

assessments, and the provision of labor market information, and are 

routinely available to anyone seeking assistance through a WIA service 

center. Dislocated workers who need additional services to find work can 

receive intensive services, such as case management and comprehensive 

assessments. In addition, dislocated workers may also qualify for training 

services, including occupational skills training, on-the-job training, skill 

upgrading, and entrepreneurial training. 

Typically, state workforce agencies apply for national emergency grants 

and distribute funds to local workforce boards in areas affected by the 

dislocations. These boards, in turn, usually contract with organizations 

that provide services or administrative support. Grantees can apply for 

grants that fund three major types of projects: 

• regular grants to retrain workers who have lost their jobs because of plant 

closings, layoffs, or military base realignments or closures; 

• disaster grants to provide temporary employment, humanitarian services, 

and retraining for workers affected by natural disasters and other 

catastrophic events; and 

• dual enrollment grants to provide supportive assistance such as case 

management services and vocational assessments to workers certified by 

Labor to receive training under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform 

Act of 2002. These are usually for workers who have lost their jobs 

because of increased imports from, or shifts in production to, foreign 

countries. 

Like other programs authorized under WIA, national emergency grant 

projects must be designed to achieve performance outcomes that support 

Labor’s performance goals. Also, Labor requires grantees to collect data 

from local projects, certify the accuracy of the data, and use them to 

complete various reports, such as the quarterly progress reports for 

national emergency grants and the state’s WIASRD data submissions. 

Quarterly progress reports include project-level information on actual 

performance to date—for example, the number of individuals participating 

in a project; the services provided, such as intensive services or training; 

and the number who entered employment. WIASRD is a national database 
Page 8 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

of individual records containing characteristics, activities, and outcome 

information for all enrolled participants who receive services or benefits 

under WIA, including national emergency grants. The database includes 

the services and training that each participant received and information on 

their subsequent employment status and wages. In coordination with 

federal agencies, the Office of Management and Budget developed uniform 

evaluation measures, called “common measures,” for job training and 

employment programs and other cross-cutting programs. The common 

measures were designed to institute uniform definitions for 

performance—such as the percentage of participants who become 

employed—across federal workforce programs. Beginning in July 2005, 

national emergency grant projects became subject to the common 

measures and Labor expected grantees to include them in its WIASRD 

data collection and reporting activities for program year 2004.3

In program year 2004, Labor funded a special type of grant, called a base 

realignment and closure (BRAC) planning grant. These grants provided 

resources to states and communities to plan for anticipated base closures, 

unlike other regular grants that provide more general employment-related 

services for dislocated workers. Accordingly, states that could be affected 

by BRAC actions were eligible to apply for national emergency grant 

funds. Labor issued guidance in May 2005 that explained the procedures 

for obtaining these grants. This guidance also specified that applicants 

must submit their applications by June 10, 2005. 

Labor’s Office of National Response, in the Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA), administers the National Emergency Grant 

program. Headquarters and regional staff share responsibility for program 

administration and oversight. At headquarters, officials make grant award 

decisions and determine whether grants will be awarded in a single 

payment or in increments. For grants disbursed in incremental payments, 

grantees are required to submit supplemental information along with their 

requests for future funding increments. Labor has established an internal 

goal of making these decisions within 30 working days. After grants are 

awarded, regional officials assume the lead role in conducting monitoring 

and oversight activities. For example, after the grant is approved, regional 

officials review and approve the project operating plan and budget, 

conduct at least one site visit that examines project activities, and review 

quarterly progress reports and financial reports. 

 3

Grantees were required to use the new measures beginning on July 1, 2005. 
Page 9 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

In program year 2004, Labor distributed about $232 million from the 

dislocated worker fund for national emergency grants to 43 states, the 

District of Columbia, and three territories (see fig. 2). The funding levels of 

these grants varied greatly. Labor awarded the largest proportion of funds 

to Florida—$76 million in grant funds, or 33 percent of the program’s total 

funds awarded during that year—mostly in the form of disaster grants to 

help the state respond to the needs of workers displaced as a result of 

hurricane damage. Ohio and California each received over $20 million in 

grants, primarily to help them meet the needs of workers displaced as a 

result of floods and storm disasters. Other states, such as Maine and 

Massachusetts, each received over $6 million, mainly to help them meet 

the needs of workers dislocated because of plant closings and downsizing, 

and Oregon received over $2 million, in part to help workers dislocated 

because of competition from foreign countries. 

Distribution and Uses of 

National Emergency 

Grants 
Page 10 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Figure 2: Distribution of National Emergency Grant Funds (Program Year 2004) 

Source: GAO analysis.

 

N.H. 

Mass. 

R.I. 

Conn. 

N.J. 

Del. 

Md. 

D.C. 

 

 

 

 

 

Vt. 

Ala. 

Ariz. 

Ark. 

Colo. 

Ga. 

Idaho 

Ill. Ind. 

Iowa 

Kans. 

La. 

Maine 

Mo. 

Mont. 

N.Mex. 

N.Y. 

N.Dak. 

Okla. 

Oreg. 

Pa. 

S.C. 

S.Dak. 

Tex. 

Utah 

Va. 

Wash. 

W. 

Va. 

Wisc. 

Wyo. 

N.C. 

Alaska 

Guam Hawaii 

Commonwealth 

of the 

Northern 

Mariana Islands

Federated States

of Micronesia 

$0 

$0.1- $0.9 million 

$1- $4.9 million 

$5- $9.9 million 

$10- $19.9 million 

$20+million 

$2.2m 

$2.5m 

$1.2m 

$1m 

$4.8m 

$3.8m 

$0.6m 

$0.5m $0.4m 

$1m 

$1m 

$1.8m $1.3m 

$1.6m 

$1m 

$7.6m 

$0.3m 

$1.5m $1.5m 

$2.5m 

$18m 

$4.9m $4.5m 

$6.4m

$11.6m 

$1.5m 

$1.4m 

$1.4m 

$3.7m $4m 

$0.5m 

$1.8m 

$1.7m 

$1.8m 

$20.3m 

Calif. 

$6.4m 

Fla. 

$76m 

Ohio 

$20.8m 

$2m

$2.3m

Minn. 

Nebr. Nev. 

Tenn. 

Miss. 

Ky. 

$.5m $.08m 

$0.2m 

$.7m 

$0.3m 

$0.5m 

Mich. 

$.2m 
Page 11 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Over the past 5 program years, Labor has awarded proportionally more of 

its national emergency grant funds for disaster grants and a smaller 

proportion for regular and dual-enrollment grants. In program year 2000, 

Labor awarded only 4 percent of its funds for disaster grants. In contrast, 

in program year 2004, Labor awarded about 57 percent of grant funds for 

disaster grants and 29 percent for regular grants (see fig. 3). For the first 

2 quarters of program year 2005, Labor awarded 92 percent of all the funds 

it awarded during those quarters for disaster projects in 11 states—

Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas—largely in response to 

damage and dislocations resulting from Hurricane Katrina. During these 

2 quarters, Labor awarded about 8 percent for regular grants. 

Figure 3: Percentage of Funds Awarded by Type of Grant (Program Years 2000–

First 2 Quarters of 2005) 

Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

Funds awarded for BRAC and dual enrollment grants in program year 2005 equal less than 1 percent 

and are excluded from the graph. 

Data for program year 2005 represent only funds awarded during the first 2 quarters of that year. 

Program year/total awarded

$184.5m $180.9m $249m $218.8m $231.6m $109.9m

Source: GAO analysis.

0

20

40

60

80

100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

70 70

49

41 57

29

13

92

8

20

12

7 4

4%

26 23

1

40 39

BRAC

Regular

Disaster

Dual enrollment
Page 12 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Labor’s new electronic application system and the streamlined 

information requirements for national emergency grant applications have, 

on average, shortened the time it takes to award grants to 25 working days 

and helped Labor award 70 percent of the grants in program year 2004 

within 30 working days from the submission of the application to the 

issuance of the award letter. However, regular national emergency grants 

(regular grants) took longer to award—45 working days on average—and 

most were not awarded within Labor’s 30-working-day goal. Moreover, 

Labor’s new system and its stated goal for awarding grants do not take 

into account important steps in the award process, such as obtaining 

approval from key Labor officials and issuing the award letter to the 

grantee. These steps added 11 days on average to the award process and 

thus hampered Labor’s ability to accurately evaluate its performance. 

Further, the steps that are excluded involve actions that are of great 

importance from the grantees’ perspective—the Secretary’s final approval 

and the award letter notifying them of the amount of money awarded. In 

addition, some users reported technical problems with the system that 

have affected its convenience and efficiency. 

During program years 2000-2002,4

 Labor took 50 working days, on average, 

to award national emergency grants—as measured from the date an 

application is submitted until the date an award letter is issued. In 

program year 2004, Labor reduced its average award processing time to 

25 days for all types of grants—decreasing the average processing time for 

regular grants from 63 to 45 days5

 and for disaster grants from 34 to 

16 days. Although Labor averaged 29 working days to award dual 

enrollment grants in 2004—longer than the 14 days it averaged during 

program years 2000-2002—most were awarded within its 30-day goal and 

these grants comprised less than 10 percent of the grants awarded that 

year (see fig. 4). 

 4

In our prior study, we reported award times in calendar days and noted that Labor took, 

on average, 92 calendar days to award regular grants. We used working days in our analysis 

because Labor clarified that, in program year 2004 and in the future, its 30-day goal refers 

to working days. 

5

We considered BRAC and regular grants as separate grant categories because of 

differences in their characteristics, although Labor considers both regular grants. 

Labor Has Shortened 

Award Times, but 

Does Not Track the 

Entire Award Process 

Labor’s New Electronic 

System Has Improved 

Grant Award Times 
Page 13 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Figure 4: Average Time Taken to Award National Emergency Grants (Program Years 

2000-2002 and Program Year 2004) 

Notes: We did not include program year 2003 in our analysis because Labor’s electronic application 

system and procedures for using this system were not implemented until program year 2004. 

The average for all grants is a weighted average. 

Overall, Labor awarded 70 percent of all grants within 30 working days 

compared with 38 percent in program years 2000-2002. Also in program 

year 2004, Labor met this goal for 100 percent of the BRAC grants and for 

91 percent of all disaster grants. In contrast, awards for regular grants took 

longer. Processing time for these grants averaged 45 working days, and 

Labor awarded only 16 percent of these grants within its 30-working-day 

goal (see fig. 5). 
Page 14 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Figure 5: Percent of Grants Awarded Within 30 Days by Project Type (Program Year 

2004) 

The new electronic system has facilitated improvements in award 

processing time in three ways. First, because applicants cannot submit an 

application on this system without completing all required data fields, 

Labor no longer has to return incomplete applications. Second, because 

applications are electronic, submissions are nearly instantaneous and the 

format allows Labor and applicants to exchange information more 

efficiently than the former paper-based system. Third, under the new 

system, the applicants are only required to provide basic information—

including project type, planned number of participants, planned support 

services, and the project operator. Grantees receiving regular grants have 

90 days from the grant approval date to submit project operating plans, 

staffing plans, and budgets. In the case of disaster grants, grantees have 

60 days from the grant approval date to submit the required information. 

Although average processing times have decreased in program year 2004, 

the time to award grants varied widely, ranging from 1 to 90 working days, 

with some types of grants taking longer than others. Several factors likely 

contributed to this variance. For example, several disaster grants were 

processed very quickly—within 1 to 2 days—because of the urgent need 

for funds in areas impacted by storms and flooding. Also, the 39 BRAC 

grants were awarded, on average, in only 14 days, reflecting the short 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Dual 

enrollment

Total BRAC Regular Disaster

grants

30 days or fewer

Source: GAO analysis.

100

91

16

70

57
Page 15 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

period of time that was available to submit and process them. In order to 

be eligible for BRAC grants, states had to be included on the Department 

of Defense’s preliminary base realignment and closure list, issued on 

May 13, 2005, and also had to follow Labor’s special guidance for these 

grants that specified that applications were due by June 10. Because the 

funds for these grants were reserved from program year 2004 money, 

Labor had to award them by June 30, the end of that program year. In 

contrast, questions about the appropriateness of project applications 

delayed the approval of other grants. For one project we visited, officials 

reported that approval for an application to address a plant closure took 

46 working days (about 2 months), largely because Labor questioned the 

amount of funds they requested and required them to prepare additional 

information to justify the costs. In addition, some grantees reported that 

delays in obtaining funds adversely impacted their ability to provide 

services, because individuals who needed employment left the affected 

area to search for work in other places or found other jobs instead of 

waiting for grant funds to become available. For example, one project we 

visited was only serving 20 of 50 eligible participants according to project 

officers, because workers could not afford to wait for services, left the 

area, or found other jobs. 

Labor’s award processing times were more consistent across quarters in 

program year 2004 than in program years 2000-2002. In program year 2004, 

the average number of working days that Labor took to award grants for 

the first 3 quarters ranged from 34 to 41 days, and only 16 days during the 

fourth quarter. In program years 2000-2002, the number of days to award 

grants during the first 3 quarters varied more widely—from 61 to 74 days 

(see table 1). 

Award Processing Time 

Was More Consistent 

during Program Year 2004 
Page 16 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Table 1: Average Time to Award Grants by Quarter in Which Application Was 

Received (Program Years 2000-2002 and Program Year 2004) 

Quarter application 

was received 

Average number of days 

to award grants in 

program years 2000-2002 

Average number of days 

to award grants in 

program year 2004

First 61 34

Second 74 40

Third 71 41

Fourth 19 16

Source: GAO analysis. 

In addition, in program year 2004, the quarter in which an application was 

awarded corresponded more closely to the quarter in which it was 

submitted. This is in contrast to program years 2000-2002, when most 

awards took place in the fourth quarter despite the fact that applications 

were received at a fairly steady rate during the last 3 quarters of the 

program year. 

During the first half of program year 2005, Labor awarded grants in 

21 working days, on average, and 67 percent were awarded within 

30 working days. The overwhelming majority of these grants were in 

response to Hurricane Katrina, many of which were awarded within a few 

working days. For example, Louisiana submitted its application on 

September 1, 2005, and Labor awarded the grant 1 day later. The quick 

approval time for most of the Katrina-related grants reflected the 

hurricane’s severity, the commitment of Labor officials to provide 

assistance as quickly as possible, and the ability of most grantees to 

submit streamlined, emergency applications. Under Labor’s regulations, 

grantees may file an abbreviated application to receive emergency funding 

within 15 days of an event that was declared a disaster by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. 

Grantees in the states that we visited had limited experience using the new 

electronic application system in requesting incremental payments. 

Moreover, Labor awarded only a relatively small number of increments in 

program year 2004 and the first half of program year 2005. Approximately 

60 percent of grants were awarded in one payment during program year 

2004 and about 75 percent during the first 2 quarters of program year 2005. 

Also, the period we examined was less than a year after most grantees had 

received their initial award and, therefore, most had not yet submitted 

applications for their next increments. 

Average Award Times 

Improved in the First 

2 Quarters of Program 

Year 2005 
Page 17 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Despite improvements in average award timeliness, Labor’s goal for 

awarding new grant applications and its electronic application system 

exclude important steps in the award process. More specifically, the time 

needed to obtain the Secretary’s approval and issue award notification 

letters to grantees is not captured by the system and is not counted as part 

of the 30-working-day goal. Labor’s electronic application system captures 

the time from the application submission date through the date that its 

Office of National Response (ONR) approves the grant application. 

However, from the grantees’ point of view, the actual process continues 

until the grant is reviewed and approved by the Secretary and an award 

letter is issued (see fig. 6). Our prior work also identified this problem with 

Labor’s measurement process.6

 In program year 2004 and the first half of 

program year 2005, these steps added 11 working days, on average, to 

award processing times. For example, officials in one state we visited 

reported that, although they received verbal confirmation that an 

application was approved, the service provider would not begin services 

without formal assurance that they would be paid. Consequently, services 

were delayed for more than 2 weeks until the official award letter was 

received. 

 6

See GAO, National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve Award 

Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant Awards and Improve Data 

GAO-04-496 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2004). 

Labor’s Electronic System 

Does Not Capture the 

Entire Award Process 
Page 18 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Figure 6: Differences between How GAO and Labor’s Electronic Application System Track the National Emergency Grant 

Award Process 

Officials in all of the states we visited told us that, while their experience 

with the new electronic application system has generally been positive, 

they have encountered some technical problems. These included minor 

problems that made the application process more difficult, as well as more 

serious issues that forced grantees to submit applications outside of the 

system. Some states had problems resolving technical questions because, 

for example, the system would not allow users and Labor’s technical 

assistance staff to view the same screen and data simultaneously. Officials 

in one state described a series of delays they experienced in submitting an 

application because they could not view a discrepancy in how a zip code 

had been entered on two different screens. 

Officials in all four of the states we visited also reported more general 

problems, including a lack of flexibility when modifying an existing 

application. For example, officials in three states told us that they had to 

adjust data to fit the system—in one case, by adding up data on 

participants and services provided at different service centers and entering 

it as information from one service center—-and that the system did not 

allow them to report changes in plans accurately. Officials in one of these 

states told us they could not use the system for one of their applications 

because several of its required fields, such as the number of participants, 

did not apply to their application. In addition, officials that we interviewed 

in all four of our site visits reported that Labor has not systematically 

queried users for feedback on the problems faced while using the new 

electronic application system. Several officials felt that minor changes to 

the system, such as providing more room to explain unusual features of 

some projects and better directions regarding how to proceed from one 

screen to another, would make the system more efficient and easier to use. 

Users of Labor’s Electronic 

Application System 

Reported Some Difficulties 
Page 19 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Labor has taken actions to improve its two sources of information on 

national emergency grants—the quarterly progress reports and WIASRD. 

In program year 2004, Labor implemented a new electronic quarterly 

progress report system and required all grantees to use this system 

beginning in January 2005. Since these actions have been taken, our 

analysis suggests that most grantees have generally submitted required 

quarterly progress reports to Labor electronically and have certified and 

reported the required data elements. In addition, in August 2004, Labor 

issued guidance that clarified that states were required to include 

information on national emergency grants as part of their submissions to 

WIASRD. In that year, 85 percent of all states that received national 

emergency grants submitted national emergency grant data to WIASRD. 

Labor’s new electronic quarterly progress report system has enhanced its 

ability to collect, review, and manage quarterly report information. More 

specifically, the new system requires grantees to submit data 

electronically, using a standard format in which all data fields are defined. 

As a result, the system has improved the uniformity and consistency of the 

progress report data Labor collects compared with our findings from 

program years 2000-2002. Labor also issued guidance specifying that 

beginning January 1, 2005, grantees would be required to submit the 

progress reports using the new system for all grants awarded after 

July 1, 2004 (the beginning of program year 2004). We found that during 

program year 2004, grantees generally submitted electronic quarterly 

progress reports as required. By contrast, for program years 2000-2002, we 

could not provide information on the extent that grantees provided 

quarterly progress reports because the reports were not collected on an 

integrated system and were not available electronically (see table 2). 

Table 2: Number and Percent of Quarterly Progress Reports Provided by Quarter 

Awarded (Program Year 2004) 

Quarter Expected reports Actual reports 

Percent of expected 

reports received

1st 9 9 100

2nd 64 52 81

3rd 27 22 81

4th 30 27 90

Total 130 110 85

Source: GAO analysis. 

Labor Has Made 

Progress in Collecting 

More Uniform 

Program Data 

Labor Has Taken Steps to 

Improve Quarterly Report 

Data 
Page 20 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

The new progress report system has also improved the completeness of 

the data that Labor collects. During program year 2004, we found that all 

grantees that were expected to provide data did in fact complete each of 

the required data fields. Under the new system, grantees must enter basic 

information—such as counts of participants, counts of services that are 

provided, and expenditures at the grantee and project level—before they 

can submit their reports electronically. By contrast, when we examined 

reports submitted for program years 2000-2002, we found that the 

quarterly report data were generally incomplete. For example, of 13 states 

for which we sampled progress report data, only about half reported the 

number enrolled in core and intensive services and just one reported 

expenditures by type of service (see table 3). 

Table 3: Information Contained in Progress Reports 

Program years 2000-2002 Program year 2004 

Data element 

Number of 

states 

expected to 

provide 

information 

Number of 

states that 

provided 

information 

Percentage of 

states in 

sample that 

provided 

information

Number of states 

expected to provide 

information

Number of states 

that provided 

information

Percentage of 

states 

expected to 

provide 

information 

that provided 

information

Enrollment in 

core services 13 7 54 45 45 100

Enrollment in 

intensive 

services 13 5 38 45 45 100

Enrollment in 

training services 13 11 85 36 36 100

Expenditure by 

type of services 13 1 8 45 45 100

Entered 

employment 13 12 92 45 45 100

Source: GAO analysis. 

After Labor issued its August 2004 guidance on data submission to 

WIASRD, the level of compliance with this requirement substantially 

increased. We found that 44 of the 48 states that likely fell under this 

requirement (90 percent) submitted data as required during program year 

2004. Officials in all four states we visited reported that, overall, they did 

not encounter problems submitting data to WIASRD as required by Labor. 

In contrast, in program year 2001, only one of the six states that received 

Labor Has Increased the 

Amount of Information on 

Grants in WIASRD 
Page 21 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

the largest proportions of national emergency grant funds submitted data 

to WIASRD (see table 4). 

Table 4: Number of States That Submitted Data to WIASRD 

Program year 

Number of 

states in 

analysis

Number of 

states required 

to report 

Number of states 

reporting

Percentage 

reporting

2004 51 48 44 90

2001 6 6 1 17

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: We counted the District of Columbia as a state. 

Although grantees are complying with the WIA data submission 

requirements, some questions about the reliability of these data remain. As 

we reported in November 2005,7

 Labor requires states to validate the data 

it submits to WIASRD, but it does not have methods in place to review 

state validation efforts nor does it hold states accountable for complying 

with its data requirements. 

Labor’s regional offices oversee each project to track its performance and 

compliance with basic program rules and requirements, but several state 

and local officials we interviewed told us that more specific guidance is 

needed. Regional officials conduct a variety of monitoring activities, 

including approving program operating plans, reviewing quarterly progress 

reports, and conducting site visits. However, Labor has not issued 

complete, program-specific guidance that would standardize monitoring 

practices across regions, states, and local areas and help ensure consistent 

practices. As a result, some states have developed their own monitoring 

tools. In addition, officials in most of the states and local areas we visited 

said that Labor does not regularly help disseminate information about how 

states and local areas are managing and monitoring their national 

emergency grant projects. 

 7

GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to Improve Data 

Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed, GAO-06-82 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2005). 

Labor Monitors 

Projects for 

Compliance with 

Basic Program 

Requirements, but 

Some States Reported 

That Better Guidance 

Is Needed 
Page 22 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

To ensure that projects effectively serve dislocated workers, Labor, states, 

and local areas carry out a variety of monitoring activities throughout the 

lifecycle of a project to track its progress toward meeting its stated 

purpose and goals. Labor officials in the four regions we visited told us 

that they follow the same general monitoring procedures for all grants, but 

tailor them as necessary for high-risk or complex grants. At the beginning 

of the grant, and at each quarter during the lifecycle of the grant, regional 

officials assess the potential risk level of the grant. They also review the 

project operating plan and analyze quarterly financial and progress reports 

to assess their timeliness, accuracy, and effectiveness in providing 

services to dislocated workers. Regional officials we interviewed told us 

they generally conduct their most comprehensive review at the project’s 

midpoint by visiting grantees and project operators. According to Labor’s 

guidance on administering the National Emergency Grant program, a 

major purpose of the on-site review for incremental grants is to review the 

need for funds to complete the project. The guidance also states that 

Labor officials will assess how well a grantee and its project operators are 

meeting the major requirements of the program. These include participant 

eligibility, financial management controls, project management, 

effectiveness of support services, and job placement services. For disaster 

grants, they also include temporary jobs for dislocated workers. The 

regional officials reported that they usually meet with state and local 

workforce officials, including project operators and dislocated workers 

enrolled in the project, and conduct an exit interview with cognizant 

officials to discuss their findings. 

According to officials in the four regions that we interviewed, Labor 

modifies monitoring and reporting procedures as necessary to ensure that 

these reviews are appropriate in terms of the special characteristics of 

some grants. For example, one regional official said they visit projects 

designated as “high risk” within 90 days after grant award, rather than 

waiting until the project’s midpoint, and work closely with the grantee 

throughout the project. Another Labor official said they monitor a grantee 

more closely if they identify potential problems. For example, if a grantee 

is late in submitting its quarterly progress reports or falls behind in 

enrolling dislocated workers in a project, the regional office will conduct 

more extensive monitoring such as telephoning the grantees or conducting 

additional site visits to determine the cause. Labor can also require 

grantees to submit reports in addition to their regular quarterly progress 

reports for unusually large or highly visible grants, such as those awarded 

to serve Hurricane Katrina victims. According to workforce officials in two 

states that received Katrina grants and a cognizant regional official, they 

initially had to submit numerous reports with different information on a 

Labor’s Regional Offices 

Monitor Projects for 

Compliance, but Labor Has 

Yet to Issue Complete 

Guidance for the Program 

Profile of Regional Office Monitoring 

In one state we visited, regional and state 

officials scheduled their on-site monitoring 

reviews concurrently. Before the visit, 

regional officials sent the state a 

notification letter; a review planning tool 

that described the areas of the review—

including program design, program and 

financial management, and service or 

product delivery—and supporting 

documents required; a list of local area 

and service provider staff to be 

interviewed; monitoring schedules; and 

the regional office’s guide for reviewing 

participant files. According to a local area 

official, the regional officials said they 

would pull a random sample of about 15 

percent of participant files during the site 

visit to ensure that workers’ eligibility and 

the types of services they received had 

been properly documented. They also 

sent a copy of Labor’s Core Monitoring 

Guide used for monitoring a variety of 

grant programs. During the visit, regional 

staff interviewed dislocated workers 

participating in the projects. State officials 

accompanied regional officials and 

conducted similar interviews. At the 

conclusion of the on-site visit, regional 

staff met with state and local officials to 

discuss their findings. Regional staff had 

30 days to submit their written report, 

which allowed state and local officials time 

to address the problems that the monitors 

had identified, and take corrective actions.
Page 23 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

daily basis, then every 3 days, and then on a weekly, biweekly, and 

monthly basis. 

Workforce officials in most of the states and local areas we visited told us 

that Labor’s oversight activities were generally beneficial and that the 

monitoring activities often provided them with helpful feedback for 

managing their grants. For example, an official in one local area said that 

Labor’s monitoring resulted in them strengthening their requirements for 

maintaining critical documents in participant files. In this area, local 

officials routinely required caseworkers to check a sample of their 

coworkers’ files to ensure that they were complete and contained 

sufficient documentation to justify the services that were provided in 

order to prepare for federal monitoring. 

Despite the general satisfaction with Labor’s monitoring efforts, we found 

that the guidance states and local areas received varied widely. Labor 

issued a draft monitoring guide specifically for national emergency grants 

in late 2005, which was based on its generic Core Monitoring Guide. 

Officials in three of the four states we visited said that they had received a 

copy of the draft monitoring guide, but none of the local areas we visited 

had. In fact, one regional office official we interviewed had not yet 

received a copy of the guide. Further, state officials told us that they had 

received different types of information from Labor to help them prepare 

for their on-site monitoring visits. For example, officials in all four states 

said that regional officials sent a list before their visit of the documents 

and participant files that they needed to review. An official in one state 

said that they had not always received written guidance on how to 

conduct their own monitoring or prepare for Labor’s monitoring visits. 

To compensate for the lack of consistent, complete guidance, all four 

states we visited had developed their own tools for monitoring local areas, 

and many of the local areas used their state’s tool or a modified version of 

it to monitor their service providers. For example, one local area official 

told us they modified the state’s tool by adding procedures for reviewing 

the documents that support a dislocated worker’s eligibility to receive 

services. An official in another state told us that their agency expanded the 

tool that it uses for its 90-day on-site monitoring visit for its mid-point 

review by including a review of the documents in participant files and 

project cost. 
Page 24 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Officials in most states and local areas we visited said they do not 

currently have opportunities to share information about promising 

practices for managing and monitoring national emergency grant projects, 

but many expressed an interest in having such opportunities. Workforce 

officials in one state and six local areas said that having Labor facilitate 

opportunities for disseminating such information would help project 

operators manage their projects more efficiently. For example, according 

to officials in one local area, they had experience operating grant projects 

that served dislocated workers in the agricultural sector, but not in the 

manufacturing sector. When faced with a layoff in a computer chip 

manufacturing plant, they had to take time to research potential job 

openings and skills required for jobs in this sector. Having information on 

how other areas served workers laid off by manufacturing companies 

would have helped shorten the time they spent developing the project and 

allowed them to serve workers more quickly. Officials in one state also 

suggested that Labor could help by creating a central repository of 

documents used in managing projects, such as examples of agreements 

used to establish temporary worksites for disaster victims. Although Labor 

has a Web site for sharing promising practices with the WIA community, 

Labor has not used this tool for facilitating improved information sharing 

about national emergency grants. 

National emergency grants are an important tool for helping states and 

localities respond to mass layoffs and disasters that result in large 

numbers of dislocated workers. When major layoffs and disasters such as 

hurricanes or floods occur, states and local areas must respond quickly to 

ensure that dislocated workers receive the services they need to re-enter 

the workforce. While the National Emergency Grant program is relatively 

small, the reemployment activities it funds are important for workers who 

have been dislocated due to mass layoffs or natural disasters. In this 

regard, it is critical for grant funds to reach program participants in a 

timely manner. By implementing an automated application system, Labor 

has, on average, substantially decreased the time required to award 

national emergency grants. However, because this system does not 

capture the entire grant process—including the time taken for the 

Secretary to issue final award letters—there is room for further 

improvement. Moreover, while the system has improved the timeliness of 

grant awards, some state and local officials have encountered problems 

using the system. Effective management and oversight requires a 

mechanism for states and localities to provide feedback to Labor, to 

ensure that potential system weaknesses are identified and addressed. 

Labor Has Not 

Disseminated Information 

on Promising Practices 

Conclusions 
Page 25 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Effective monitoring is also a critical component of grant management. 

While Labor’s monitoring activities appear to provide reasonable 

assurance that grant funds are being used for their intended purpose, 

some state and local officials said that standardized guidance would be 

beneficial. In particular, once Labor finalizes its monitoring guide for 

grants, state and local officials responsible for grant administration and 

oversight could benefit from more consistent, specific federal guidance. 

Moreover, state and local officials could benefit from innovative project 

management practices that have promoted efficiency and effectiveness in 

other states where grant funds have been awarded. However, without 

disseminating such information through a centralized mechanism, it is 

difficult for state and local officials to learn of promising practices in other 

jurisdictions and use this information early in the planning process. 

In order for Labor to better manage the grant award process and system, 

accurately assess the time it takes to award grant funds, and improve its 

guidance to states and local areas, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Labor take additional actions. In particular, Labor should 

• extend its electronic application system and its own timeliness 

measurement process to capture the entirety of the award process from 

the perspective of grant applicants, specifically through final approval and 

issuance of award letters by the Secretary; 

• solicit information from users of the application system to guide future 

refinements to this system; 

• distribute more complete guidance and tools for monitoring grant 

projects; and 

• explore cost-effective ways to disseminate information to states and local 

areas to help them learn about promising practices for managing national 

grant projects. 

The Department of Labor commented on a draft of this report, indicating 

that it agrees with our findings and the intent of all four recommendations 

(see app. III). Labor’s comments also highlighted some actions that it has 

already taken or plans to take. Labor reported that it has recently 

implemented a new version of its electronic application system that has 

expanded its capacity to manage all elements of the application process. 

However, Labor did not directly address our recommendation that the 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 
Page 26 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

system be expanded to capture the entirety of the awards process, 

including final approval and issuance of the award letters by the Secretary. 

In addition, Labor agreed that information from users is needed to guide 

future refinements to the system but noted that a survey of all users might 

require a formal paperwork clearance process and, therefore, would 

provide less timely information than its present system involving user tests 

with selected grantees. While we agree that information from user tests is 

useful, we believe feedback from all grantees would better inform future 

enhancements. Regarding our recommendation that it distribute more 

complete guidance and monitoring tools, Labor explained that it is 

currently field-testing a monitoring guide for national emergency grant 

projects, and plans to release this guide by September 2006. We believe 

such a guide could be an important step toward establishing consistent 

monitoring practices. Also, Labor concurred with our recommendation 

that it explore cost-effective ways to disseminate information to states and 

local areas to help them learn about promising practices for managing 

national emergency grant projects. In particular, Labor noted that it has 

relied upon venues such as national conferences and forums to facilitate 

the sharing of information among grantees. Labor did not provide 

technical comments on the draft. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor and other 

interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s 

home page at http://www.gao.gov. 
Page 27 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Please contact me on 202-512-7215 or at nilsens@gao.gov if you or 

members of your staff have any questions about this report. Contact points 

for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Sigurd R. Nilsen 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 28 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Our objectives were to (1) determine whether Labor has shortened grant 

award times since our 2004 report and has been able to meet its own goal 

of 30 working days for awarding grants, (2) examine the uniformity of the 

program data that Labor is currently collecting, and (3) assess Labor’s 

monitoring and oversight of national emergency grant projects. 

To examine how long it takes Labor to award national emergency grants 

and determine whether Labor is meeting its 30-working-day timeliness 

goal, we obtained a listing from Labor of all grants awarded during 

program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of program year 2005. We 

selected this time period because Labor implemented its new electronic 

application system and streamlined application data requirements at the 

beginning of program year 2004. We computed (1) the number of working 

days between the date of the original grant application and the date of the 

award letter to determine overall grant award times and award times by 

type of grant and (2) the percentage of grants that were awarded within 

Labor’s timeliness goal of 30 working days. We supplemented data from 

Labor’s electronic database with data from its hard copy grant files, 

including information contained in the award letters for all grants awarded 

during program year 2004, because the application system did not contain 

data for all steps in the awards process. We excluded two grants because 

they were not submitted electronically. 

Table 5: Number of National Emergency Grants Awarded and Used in GAO Analysis 

Program year 2004 Program year 2005—first 2 Quarters 

Type of grant 

Number of grants 

awarded 

Number of files with 

complete information 

used in our analyses

Number of grants 

awarded 

Number of files with 

complete information 

used in our analyses

BRAC grants 39 39 0 0

Regular grants 26 25 2 2

Disaster grants 11 11 12 12

Dual enrollment 8 7 1 1

Total 84 82 15 15

Source: GAO analysis. 

In order to compare the award processing times for program year 2004 

with program years 2000-2002, we converted calendar days to working 

days because Labor’s present day goal is expressed in working days. 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Timeliness 

Assessment 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 29 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

To determine the degree that grantees submitted quarterly progress 

reports with the required data elements, we analyzed the extent that 

grantees submitted quarterly progress reports by quarter and the extent 

that grantees completed required data fields during program year 2004. We 

eliminated the BRAC planning grants from these analyses because 

quarterly report data were designed to capture information on participants 

and services, not planning activities. We compared the completeness of 

data submitted during program year 2004 with the completeness of data 

submitted during program years 2000-2002. 

To assess the extent that grantees complied with requirements to summit 

data to the WIASRD database, we identified states that received national 

emergency grants in programs years 2002, 2003, and 2004, and, therefore, 

were likely to have participants that left projects in program year 2004. We 

examined the WIASRD database to see if it contained program year 2004 

data for these states. We compared the percentage of grantees that 

provided national emergency grant data to the database in 2004 with the 

percentage that provided data in 2000, based on the sample of grantees 

that were selected for our previous analysis in 2004. 

To assess the reliability of data about award processing times, we 

interviewed officials responsible for compiling these data. We verified the 

accuracy of the application dates that Labor gave us by comparing them 

with dates on the actual applications and dates on the electronic 

application system. Also, we drew a 10-percent random sample of all 

grants awarded in program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of 2005 and 

verified information in the electronic system with information in the 

official hard copy grant files. To assess the reliability of information in the 

electronic quarterly progress report system, we examined materials 

related to data entry and examined the completeness of data submissions. 

Also, we interviewed state and local officials regarding their data 

collection procedures and verification processes. We determined the data 

were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. 

We interviewed officials in the Office of National Response and the Office 

of Grant and Contract Management in Labor’s Employment and Training 

Administration to obtain information on application processing, program 

polices, and grants management. We also interviewed key staff in the 

Office of Field Operations and officials in four regional offices where we 

conducted site visits. They are in charge of monitoring and oversight to 

obtain information on data reporting, oversight requirements, and 

Analysis of Program 

Data 

Assessment of Data 

Quality 

Interviews with Labor 

Officials 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 30 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

monitoring procedures. In addition, we interviewed officials representing 

Labor’s contractor to obtain technical information on the electronic 

application system. 

To learn more about the application system, data requirements, and 

oversight from the grantees’, service providers’, and dislocated workers’ 

points of view, we conducted site visits to four states—Florida, Maine, 

Oregon, and Texas. We selected these states because they each received a 

substantial amount of national emergency grant funding and, together, 

represented different geographical regions, had received a diversified mix 

of regular, BRAC, disaster, and dual enrollment grants. (See table 5.) On 

these site visits, we conducted in-depth interviews with state workforce 

officials, representatives of local workforce investment boards, and 

service providers. In addition, we visited four work sites that provided 

temporary employment to individuals who had lost their jobs as a result of 

Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma. 

Table 6: Number of Grants Received during Program Year 2004 and the First 2 

Quarters of Program Year 2005 

State Total Regular Disaster Dual enrollment BRAC

Florida 4 3 1

Maine 4 3 1

Oregon 6 2 4

Texas 3 11 1

Source: GAO analysis. 

Our work was conducted between September 2005 and July 2006 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Site Visits 
Appendix II: Summary of Funds Awarded for 

Regular, Disaster, and Dual Enrollment 

Grants during Program Year 2004 

Page 31 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Regular 

State BRAC Non-BRAC Disaster Dual enrollment Total

Alabama $1,000,000 $235,619 $2,500,000 $3,735,619

Alaska 615,000 615,000

Arkansas 1,000,000 400,000 1,400,000

California 1,370,000 7,285,457 11,665,000 20,320,457

Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands 2,000,000 2,000,000

Colorado 2,500,000 2,500,000

Connecticut 1,000,000 753,775 1,753,775

District of Columbia 950,000 950,000

Federated States 

of Micronesia 2,288,320 2,288,320

Florida 1,000,000 75,000,000 76,000,000

Georgia 1,000,000 3,030,218 4,030,218

Guam 475,000 475,000

Hawaii 45,000 45,000

Idaho 1,817,046 1,817,046

Illinois 1,500,000 1,500,000

Indiana 1,500,000 1,500,000

Iowa 382,000 658,519 1,040,519

Kansas 850,000 324,031 1,174,031

Kentucky 300,000 300,000

Louisiana 1,000,000 392,288 1,392,288

Maine 1,273,628 5,163,228 6,436,856

Maryland 1,237,500 $378,000 1,615,500

Massachusetts 1,000,000 6,656,568 7,656,568

Michigan 221,778 221,778

Minnesota 500,000 500,000

Mississippi 250,000 250,000

Missouri 1,000,000 2,753,652 3,753,652

Montana 76,690 1,654,649 1,731,339

Nebraska 75,000 75,000

Nevada 528,500 528,500

New Hampshire 347,967 347,967

New Mexico 1,000,000 1,000,000

New York 730,000 615,750 1,345,750

Appendix II: Summary of Funds Awarded for 

Regular, Disaster, and Dual Enrollment 

Grants during Program Year 2004 
Appendix II: Summary of Funds Awarded for 

Regular, Disaster, and Dual Enrollment 

Grants during Program Year 2004 

Page 32 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Regular 

State BRAC Non-BRAC Disaster Dual enrollment Total

North Carolina 1,000,000 10,014,637 7,000,000 18,014,637

North Dakota 1,000,000 1,000,000

Ohio 1,000,000 285,516 19,570,845 20,856,361

Oklahoma 250,000 1,294,351 1,544,351

Oregon 1,807,462 374,007 2,181,469

Pennsylvania 1,000,000 217,540 10,407,984 11,625,524

Rhode Island 472,499 472,499

South Carolina 500,000 1,984,638 2,484,638

South Dakota 1,000,000 795,000 1,795,000

Tennessee 670,000 670,000

Texas 235,000 4,595,931 4,830,931

Virginia 1,000,000 3,924,493 4,924,493

West Virginia 616,764 1,924,604 2,000,000 4,541,368

Wisconsin 75,000 5,911,645 369,902 6,356,547

Total $29,556,860 $67,694,795 $122,816,453 $11,529,893 $231,598,001

Source: GAO analysis. 
Appendix III Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 33 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Appendix III Comments from the Department 

of Labor 
Appendix III Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 34 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 
Appendix III Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 35 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 36 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director (202) 512-7215 

Jeremy D. Cox, Assistant Director; Kathleen D. White, Analyst-in-Charge; 

Carolyn S. Blocker; and Daniel C. Cain served as team members and made 

major contributions to all aspects of this report. In addition, 

Catherine Hurley and Jean McSween advised on methodological and 

analytic aspects of this report; Susan Bernstein advised on report 

preparation; Jessica Botsford advised on legal issues; Yunsian Tai helped 

conduct data analyses; Robert Alarapon provided graphic design 

assistance; and Katharine Leavitt verified our findings. 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products 

Page 37 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Labor Should Take Action to Ensure 

Performance Data Are Complete, Accurate, and Accessible. GAO-06-496. 

Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Most Workers in Five Layoffs Received 

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

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

Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to 

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

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

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

Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650. 

Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005. 

Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment 

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

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative 

Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting 

Requirements. GAO-05-539. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms Have Accelerated Training 

Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges Remain. GAO-04-1012. 

Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed 

Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. 

GAO-04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004. 

National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve 

Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant 

Awards and Improve Data. GAO-04-496. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004. 

National Emergency Grants: Services to Workers Hampered by Delays in 

Grant Awards, but Labor Is Initiating Steps Actions to Improve Grant 

Award Process. GAO-04-222. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance 

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

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

Related GAO Products 
Related GAO Products 

Page 38 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Experiences of Six Trade-Impacted 

Communities. GAO-01-838. Washington, D.C.: August 24, 2001. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Trends, Outcomes, and Management 

Issues in Dislocated Worker Programs. GAO-01-59. Washington, D.C.: 

October 13, 2000. 

(130518) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER