Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

October 2001 WORKFORCE

INVESTMENT ACT

Better Guidance

Needed to Address

Concerns Over New

Requirements

GAO-02-72
Page i GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 6

Participation in The One-Stop Limited by Programmatic and

Financial Concerns 13

Training Options May Become Limited as Training Providers Drop

Out of the System 22

Current Operations of Workforce Investment Boards and Affiliated

Entities May Discourage Private-Sector Participation 29

Conclusions 36

Recommendations to Executive Agencies 37

Matter for Congressional Consideration 38

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 38

Appendix I Presence of Partners at Nine One-Stops and

Method of Core Service Provision 42

Appendix II Comments From the Department of Labor 43

Appendix III Comments From the Department of Education 45

Appendix IV Comments From the Department of Health and

Human Services 50

Appendix V Comments From the Department of Housing and

Urban Development 52

Appendix VI GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 56

GAO Contacts 56

Staff Acknowledgments 56

Contents
Page ii GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Related GAO Products 57

Tables

Table 1: WIA’s Federal Programs: Funding Levels, Services

Provided, and Target Populations (dollars in millions) 7

Table 2: Membership Requirements for State and Local Boards 12

Table 3: Programmatic Concerns Raised by Selected Partners and

Related Guidance by Pertinent Federal Agencies 18

Table 4: State and Local Implementers’ Ideas for Addressing

Partners’ Programmatic and Financial Concerns 22

Table 5: State and Local Implementers’ Ideas for Addressing

Training Provider Participation Concerns 29

Table 6: State and Local Implementers’ Ideas for Enhancing

Private-Sector Participation 36

Table 7: Partner Programs and Method of Core Service Provision at

Nine One-Stops 42

Figure

Figure 1: Composition of Committees at the State Level in

Vermont, California, and Pennsylvania 34

Abbreviations

ETPL eligible training provider list

FERPA Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

GED general equivalency diploma

HEA Higher Education Act

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

ITA individual training account

OMB Office of Management and Budget

SSN social security number

UI unemployment insurance

WIA Workforce Investment Act
Page 1 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

October 4, 2001

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy

Chairman

The Honorable James M. Jeffords

Committee on Health, Education,

 Labor and Pensions

United States Senate

A competitive national economy depends, in part, on a workforce

development system that provides individuals with labor market skills and

gives employers access to qualified workers. In the past, the nation’s job

training system was fragmented, containing overlapping programs that did

not serve job seekers or employers well.1

 To address these problems, the

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

create a system connecting employment, education, and training services

to better match workers to labor market needs. WIA’s requirements

represented a significant change from prior workforce development

efforts, including, among other things:

• The streamlining of employment and training services through better

integration at the local level. In that respect, WIA requires state and local

entities who carry out at least 17 federal programs2

 to participate in local

one-stop centers (local centers offering job placement assistance for

workers, and opportunities for employers to find workers) by making

employment and training-related services available,3

 and by providing

support for the establishment and operation of these one-stops through

payment of rent or in-kind contributions.4

 1

GAO has reported in the past that the prior workforce development system was

fragmented. See Related GAO Products.

2

The entities carrying out these programs or their activities at the one-stops are termed

“mandatory partners.” They are funded through four federal agencies: the Department of

Labor (Labor), the Department of Education (Education), the Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

See table 1 for a listing of the programs.

3

These services include “core” services, such as initial eligibility, as well as access to the

full range of services.

4

WIA did not dictate how one-stops must be set up, but in guidance, Labor described a

range of one-stop models.

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

• Enhanced training options for job seekers receiving training. WIA requires

any training provider (such as a community college or a technical

education program) wanting to participate in this new system to collect

and report data on student outcomes (such as completion, placement, and

wage rates). Job seekers could use this information to, among other

things, decide what training provider or course offering to patronize.

• A stronger role for the private sector in the workforce system. WIA

requires that the private sector lead and represent the majority of

members on state and local workforce investment boards. WIA created

these boards to establish workforce development policies and oversee

one-stop operations.

The Congress passed WIA in August 1998, but many of its components

took full effect on July 1, 2000.5

 As a result, state and local implementers

(those responsible for carrying out WIA at the state and local level) are at

different stages of implementation, with most just recently completing

their first full year of WIA implementation.6

 In an effort to assess what

progress states and localities are making implementing WIA’s

requirements and what issues may be affecting one-stop partners’ ability to

achieve full integration, Labor’s ultimate vision of future one-stop

systems—you asked that we identify issues of particular concern to state

and local implementers, as well as possible solutions to address these

issues. For the purposes of this report, we focused on issues related to the

three WIA requirements that represent the foundation of this new system.

These issues are (1) mandatory partners’ participation in the one-stops, (2)

job seekers’ ability to receive enhanced choices for training, and (3)

private-sector participation on workforce boards.

To more fully assess these issues, we interviewed officials from the

Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services (HHS), and

Housing and Urban Development (HUD). We also interviewed officials

from national associations representing a variety of state and local

 5

For example, creation of the one-stops, training provider requirements, and establishment

of boards, which we focus on in this report, and which are in WIA’s Title I, were not

required to take full effect until July 1, 2000.

6

Examples of state and local implementers include, among others, those agency officials

serving individuals eligible for any of the mandatory partners’ services, public and privatesector representatives serving on state and local workforce investment boards, governors

and local elected officials, training providers, etc. “Mandatory partners” are a subset of all

state and local implementers.
Page 3 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

implementers (for example, local governments, state labor agencies,

educational institutions, private-sector representatives). To further

understand the effect these issues were having on local-level

implementation and to determine possible solutions, we met with a wide

range of officials during visits to three states (California, Pennsylvania,

and Vermont), six local areas, and nine one-stop centers in those states.

We selected the states based on a variety of economic, demographic, and

other state-specific factors.7 To further validate our findings, we sponsored

a symposium that included officials from the key associations representing

state and local implementers. Although our findings are not applicable to

the universe of state and local implementers, they were corroborated by

several sources, including surveys conducted for us by two national

associations8

 and a survey conducted by the Department of Labor (Labor)

on the status of WIA implementation efforts that included information

representing 132 out of approximately 600 local areas.9

 We performed our

work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards between December 2000 and August 2001.

As required by WIA, mandatory partners are making efforts to participate

in the one-stops. However, programmatic or financial concerns are

affecting the partners’ level of participation, as well as their ability to fully

integrate their services at the one-stops. First, several mandatory partners

feared that one-stop participation would significantly alter their traditional

service-delivery methods and could adversely affect the quality of services

provided to their eligible populations. For example, staff for one program

that serves the disabled expressed concerns that the special services their

eligible population may need, such as sign language interpreters, are not

available at many one-stops, but are available at existing program offices.

 7

For example, California has the largest WIA funding and the most local workforce

investment areas, while Vermont has significantly less funding and only one workforce

investment area. We selected Pennsylvania because it implemented WIA earlier than the

other two states and we believed it might have had different implementation experiences.

Other factors we considered included past and expected economic growth in these states.

We utilized a range of criteria, such as population density, to select the local areas visited

in each state.

8

The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Counties conducted these

surveys of their entire respective memberships. About 100 of the approximately 600 local

areas responded.

9

Labor’s study is not necessarily representative of all local areas because only about one

quarter of the local areas responded.

Results in Brief
Page 4 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Second, several mandatory partners were also concerned that full

integration could lead them to serve individuals otherwise ineligible for

their services. For example, local staff of one mandatory program, the

Department of Education’s Vocational Rehabilitation Services program,

said that they must serve those individuals who are most in need of

services, and would violate their own program’s requirements if they were

to serve an individual at the one-stop who did not meet that criteria. In

addition, mandatory partners said that resource constraints limited their

ability to fully integrate their services at the one-stops. For example, when

mandatory partners have a lease on an existing facility that they cannot

break, they can incur additional expenses by operating out of that

location, providing staff to the one-stop, or establishing other links to the

one-stops. The agencies that oversee the programs, such as Labor, have

not provided adequate guidance as to how mandatory partners can resolve

these concerns to achieve full integration at the one-stops. State and local

implementers shared with us their ideas on how to address these

problems, such as offering incentives to mandatory partners for

participation.

As implementation of WIA progresses, training options for job seekers

may be diminishing rather than improving, as training providers reduce the

number of course offerings they make available to WIA job seekers.

According to training providers, the data collection burden resulting from

participation in WIA can be significant and may discourage their

willingness to participate. For example, the requirement that training

providers collect outcome data on all students in a class may mean calling

hundreds of students to obtain placement and wage information, even if

there is only one WIA-funded student in that class. Even if they used other

methods that may be less resource-intensive, training providers said

privacy limitations might limit their ability to collect or report student

outcome data. Training providers also highlighted the burden associated

with the lack of consistency between the data reporting definitions states

use for WIA and other mandatory partners. For example, the definition a

state establishes for “program completer” for students enrolled in WIA can

be different from the definition a state establishes for students enrolled in

Education’s Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Program (Perkins).

Training providers find the reporting requirements particularly

burdensome given the relatively small number of individuals who have

been sent for training. Guidance from Labor and Education has failed to

address how training providers can provide this information costeffectively. State and local implementers shared their views on ways to

reduce training providers’ burden and enhance job seekers’ training
Page 5 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

options, such as allowing training providers to collect required data on

only a sample of their students.

Private-sector representatives may be discouraged from participating on

workforce investment boards as a result of how states and localities are

operating their boards and associated entities. Private-sector

representatives and other implementers have said that the large size of the

workforce investment boards at the state and local levels—54 in one state

we visited—have made it difficult to conduct the board’s business in an

efficient manner. In addition, according to private-sector representatives,

the structures established to accommodate the boards’ large size might

inaccurately reflect private-sector views. For example, the boards’ day-today operations are typically carried out by public-sector employees with

few ties or little understanding of the employer community. In addition,

committees that have been set up under the auspices of the boards that

are tasked with researching key issues may not have sufficient

membership from the private sector to ensure that they focus on the issues

of concern to the private sector. Although Labor has offered information

to the private sector related to boards through its contractors, several

training sessions, and publications, it has not issued specific guidance to

help states and localities overcome some of these issues. If these issues

are left unresolved, several private-sector representatives told us they

might reduce their level of participation. State and local implementers

shared with us their ideas of ways to help maintain private-sector

leadership, such as requiring a private-sector chair and private-sector

majority on committees.

We are recommending that the responsible federal agencies—Labor,

Education, HHS, and HUD—work together to provide more effective

guidance on how to address the specific concerns identified by state and

local implementers. We are also presenting a matter for congressional

consideration, suggesting that the Congress provide more time for training

providers to adjust to the data collection and reporting requirements.

Labor, Education, HHS, and HUD provided us with written comments on a

draft of this report. HHS concurred with the recommendation that was

applicable to its activities. Neither Labor, Education, nor HUD commented

specifically on our recommendations, but reiterated the difficulties

associated with WIA implementation. Education raised concerns about

our assessment of mandatory partners’ progress towards the full

integration model, rather than other acceptable models. We did not intend

to imply that full integration is the only option for participation. However,

because Labor highlighted full integration as its ultimate vision for
Page 6 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

participation, our report sought to identify issues that would complicate

partners’ efforts to achieve full integration. HUD said that it did not believe

that WIA was directly applicable to its programs. We incorporated the

agencies’ comments into the report as appropriate.

Through WIA, the Congress sought to replace the fragmented training and

employment system that existed under the previous workforce system.

Among other things, WIA streamlined program services at one-stop

centers, offered job seekers the ability to make informed choices about

training, and provided for private-sector leadership to manage this new

workforce development system.

To ensure better integration of employment and training services at the

local level, WIA imposed requirements on at least 17 programs

administered by four federal agencies. These requirements included,

among others, making core employment and training services available

through the one-stop centers, providing access to the programs’ other

services to those eligible, and supporting the one-stops’ establishment and

operation.10 As shown in table 1, these programs represent a range of

funding levels, from $2.4 billion for the Vocational Rehabilitation Program

to $55 million for Native American employment and training programs.

The programs also represent various target populations. For example,

while many of the programs serve either low-income or otherwise

disadvantaged or unemployed individuals, WIA’s Adult and Dislocated

Worker programs can serve any individual 18 or older, as can WagnerPeyser’s Employment Service (Employment Service). In contrast,

Education’s Vocational Rehabilitation Services program can only serve

disabled individuals and even then prioritizes which of those it can serve.

These programs also represent a range of service-delivery methods. Many

of these programs’ services are administered by public agency personnel

(such as those from state labor or education departments). Other

programs are administered by, among others, nonprofit or communitybased organizations, unions, Indian tribal governments, and community

development corporations. Several of these programs consist of block

grants that are provided to states and localities for a variety of efforts,

which may include employment and training services. Although many of

 10Labor introduced the one-stop concept in 1994, when it began awarding implementation

grants to help states bring Labor-funded employment and training programs into a single

infrastructure.

Background

Streamlining Services

Through One-Stop Centers
Page 7 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

the programs provide for training, such as WIA’s Adult and Dislocated

Worker programs, others, such as veterans’ employment and training

programs, must work with other programs to obtain training for their

participants.

Table 1: WIA’s Federal Programs: Funding Levels, Services Provided, and Target Populations (dollars in millions)

Required programsa

2001

appropriation Services provided and target population

Department of Labor

Adult Worker Program $950 Assessment, counseling, job readiness skills, and

occupational skills training to individuals age 18 or older

Dislocated Worker Program 1,590 Assessment, counseling, job readiness skills, and

occupational skills training to individuals age 18 or older,

such as those who are unemployed or seeking

reemployment

Youth Program 1,103 Assistance for youth ages 14–21 to complete an

educational program or to secure and hold employment.

Priority is given to low-income individuals with particular

employment or school-completion barriers

Wagner-Peyser

Employment Service

1,016 Assessment, counseling, job readiness and placement to

any individual seeking employment who is legally

authorized to work in the United States

Trade Adjustment Assistance Training Program 407 Reemployment assistance to individuals who have become

unemployed as the result of increased imports

Employment and training services to veterans 159 Counseling and placement services to veterans, including

those with service-connected disabilities; connections to

other programs that can fund training

Unemployment Insurance 2,349 Compensation to individuals who have become

unemployed through no fault of their own and are looking

for work

Job Corps 1,400 A residential program that provides job training and jobreadiness skills to disadvantaged at-risk youth, ages 16–24

Welfare-to-Work Program 1,500bVariety of services, including transitional employment, wage

subsidies, job training and placement, and postemployment

services, to move welfare recipients, custodial parents with

incomes below the poverty line, and noncustodial parents of

low-income children into employment

Senior Community Service Employment Program 440 Assessment, counseling, placement assistance, and

occupational skills training for low-income persons age 55

and over

Migrant & Seasonal Farmworker Employment and

Training Program

77 Assessment, counseling, placement assistance,

occupational skills training, and other supportive services

for economically disadvantaged migrant and seasonally

employed workers

Native American Employment and Training Programs 55 Assessment, counseling, placement assistance,

occupational skills training, and other supportive services

for Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian individuals

Department of Education

Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program 2,376 Assessment, counseling, placement assistance,

occupational skills training, and other rehabilitative services
Page 8 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Required programsa

2001

appropriation Services provided and target population

to individuals with disabilities; priority is given to those with

the most significant disabilities

Adult Education and Literacy 540 Assessment and basic skills and literacy training to adults

over the age of 16, not enrolled in school, who lack a high

school diploma or the basic skills to function effectively in

the workplace and in their daily lives

Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Program 1,100cImprovement of vocational and technical education

programs through curriculum and professional

development, purchase of equipment, services to members

of special populations, and other activities.

HHS

Community Services Block Grant 600dA wide array of assistance, including but not limited to

employment or training, to low-income families and their

communities

HUD

HUD-administered employment and training eA wide range of employment and training-related services

to residents of public and assisted housing and other lowincome persons

Total $14,162f

Note: Local areas have the option of including other programs as well, such as those providing

services under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program (a welfare program under

HHS), and the Food Stamps Employment and Training program (an assistance program under the

Department of Agriculture), to name a few.

a

Title I of WIA replaced those programs that had been under the Job Training Partnership Act for

economically disadvantaged adults, youths and dislocated workers with three new programs - Adult,

Dislocated Worker, and Youth. It also reauthorized several programs, such as Native American

Employment and Training Programs, Job Corps, employment and training services to veterans, and

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Training Program. Title II of WIA repealed the Adult Education Act

and replaced it with the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, Title III amended the WagnerPeyser Act (Employment Service) to require that the program’s activities be provided as part of the

WIA one-stop system, and Title IV amended the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Vocational

Rehabilitation).

b

This figure represents fiscal year 2000 funding; no additional funding was provided in fiscal year

2001. The amount of the unused prior years’ funds is not available.

c

Post-secondary institutions that receive funds are mandatory partners. States determine the

proportion of funds allocated to secondary and postsecondary education. Nationwide, 38 percent of

these funds were allocated to postsecondary institutions in fiscal year 2001.

d

Of this amount, only $590.5 million was available to states, territories, the District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and federal and state-recognized tribes. $9.5 million was available for

training and technical assistance.

e

According to HUD, none of its many workforce development initiatives have employment and training

as a primary purpose nor are they required to use their funding for employment and training

purposes, although they may do so.

f

Total does not include fund totals for Welfare-to-Work or HUD’s initiatives.

Source: Labor, Education, HHS, and HUD.
Page 9 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

While WIA created the establishment of one-stops, it did not prescribe

their structure or specific operations. However, in guidance published in

June 2000, Labor identified a range of models that could be used to comply

with the law’s requirements. These models included simple collocation of

program staff at the one-stops with coordinated delivery of services, or

electronic data sharing between partners’ existing offices and the onestops. According to Labor and others, however, the vision for future

participation by partners in one-stop systems is “full integration.” Labor

has defined full integration as all partner programs coordinated and

administered under one management structure and accounting system,

offering joint delivery of program services from combined resources. WIA

gave local areas discretion to determine the means by which partners

would participate in providing core services and support for the one-stops’

operations. The arrangements were supposed to be resolved in a

memorandum of understanding between the local workforce investment

boards and each partner. As an example of coordinated delivery systems,

partners could develop contractual agreements with other partners to

provide core services, which could include referral arrangements. WIA

also provided a great deal of flexibility as to how partners could support

the one-stops. For example, WIA allows making financial contributions

(for example, paying rent for staff collocated at the one-stop), or providing

equipment or shared services (for example, teaching a class, or greeting

individuals who enter the one-stop).

In addition to requiring the mandatory partners to provide their core

services at the one-stop, WIA changed the way partners served job

seekers. WIA initiated a sequencing of services for adults and dislocated

workers to ensure that they were receiving the requisite amount of

services needed to enter the workforce, and that funds for more intensive

services or training were targeted to those who needed them most.

Accordingly, WIA required that anyone coming into the one-stop would

first receive only core services to aid them with their job search

activities.11 If these efforts were unsuccessful in helping the job seeker

obtain or retain a job that allows for self-sufficiency, then he or she could

 11Section 134(d)(2) of WIA lists 11 core services, such as program eligibility determination,

assessment, and provision of employment statistics. However, only the Adult and

Dislocated Worker programs must offer the entire list of core services; other partners are

only required to provide those that are applicable to their program. For example, a core

service for Education’s Perkins program may be initial assessment of an individual’s

vocational and academic skill levels as part of a program for members of special

populations, while a core service for a partner providing Education’s Adult Education and

Literacy program would be an assessment of an individual’s aptitudes and abilities.
Page 10 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

receive intensive services. These services are conducted by one-stop staff

to help the job seeker find, successfully compete for, and retain a job.

Intensive services can include activities such as counseling, and in-depth

skill assessment. Intensive services also include classes such as general

equivalency diploma (GED), literacy, conflict resolution, and punctuality

classes. If these activities still do not help the job seeker obtain and retain

employment, then the individual may be eligible to receive occupational

skills training.12 WIA allowed local discretion regarding how individuals

would move from one level to the next among those three levels of

services. According to Labor, individuals may receive the three levels of

service concurrently and the determination that an individual needs

intensive and/or training services can be made without regard to how long

the individual has been receiving core services.

One of the criticisms of past workforce systems was that few data were

available on the impact that training had on a job seeker’s ability to obtain

and maintain employment. Consequently, there is a requirement, specific

to WIA’s Adult and Dislocated Worker programs, for individuals seeking

jobs through WIA. WIA requires the collection of outcome data to be used

to assess training providers’ performance and also to allow job seekers

receiving training the ability to make more informed choices about

training providers. Unlike prior systems, WIA allows individuals eligible

for training under the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs to receive

vouchers—called Individual Training Accounts (ITAs)—which can be used

for the training provider and course offering of their choice, within certain

limitations.13

Training provider participation under WIA’s Adult and Dislocated Worker

programs centers on an eligible training provider list (ETPL). This list

contains all training course offerings that are available to WIA-funded

individuals eligible for training. Course offerings from most community

colleges and other technical education providers are automatically

qualified to be on the ETPL for 1 year, as long as providers submitted

paperwork to each local area where they wanted their course offerings to

be available. When WIA-funded individuals with ITAs enrolled in a course,

 12Candidates for skills training must, among other things, have the skill prerequisites to

successfully complete the training selected.

13The course offering should be in a demand occupation, for example, an occupation for

which labor market information suggests a current and continuing need for workers.

Training Provider

Performance and Informed

Choice for Job Seekers
Page 11 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

the training providers would, to stay on the ETPL after the first year of

initial eligibility, need to collect and report data on all the students

enrolled in that course. The providers need to collect data on (1)

completion rates, (2) job-placement rates, and (3) wages at placement.

WIA also required, among other things, collection of retention rates and

wage gains for participants funded under the Adult and Dislocated Worker

programs for 6 months following their first day of employment.14 This

procedure has to be repeated for any new course offering that training

providers may want to place on the ETPL.

To have course offerings remain on the ETPL after the 1-year initial

eligibility period, training providers must meet or exceed performance

criteria established by the state. For example, a state might determine that

only training providers’ courses with an 80-percent-completion rate would

be allowed to remain on the ETPL. If a course failed to meet that level, it

would no longer be open to WIA-funded individuals. Labor’s final

regulations allowed states to extend the initial eligibility period for up to

an additional six months under certain circumstances.

WIA called for the development of workforce investment boards to

oversee WIA implementation at the state and local levels. At the state

level, WIA required, among other things, that the workforce investment

board assist the governor in helping to set up the system, establish

procedures and processes for ensuring accountability, and designate local

workforce investment areas. WIA also required that boards be established

within each of the local workforce investment areas to carry out the

formal agreements developed between the boards and each partner, and to

oversee one-stop operations.15 According to Labor, there are 54 state

workforce investment boards and approximately 600 local boards.16

 14While this additional data collection requirement is only applicable to participants who

had been funded under the Adult or Dislocated Worker programs, the Governor is

permitted to require providers to submit this type of data for non-WIA individuals, as well

as additional data for all individuals.

15WIA allowed states and localities to designate a preexisting structure from prior

workforce efforts to serve as their board, as long as it met certain criteria. According to

Labor, about 27 states and approximately 200 local areas designated such structures as

their board, such as their State Human Resource Investment Councils.

16Boards have been established in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin

Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Forming Workforce

Investment Boards Led by

the Private Sector
Page 12 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

WIA listed what types of members should participate on the workforce

investment boards, but did not prescribe a minimum or maximum number

of members. Also, it allowed governors to select representatives from

various segments of the workforce investment community, including

business, education, labor, and other organizations with experience in the

delivery of workforce investment activities to be represented on the state

boards. The specifics for local board membership were similar to those for

the state.17 (See table 2.)

Table 2: Membership Requirements for State and Local Boards

Level of board

applicable to

Membership requirement State Local

Governor X

2 members of each chamber of state legislature X

Representatives of businesses X X

Chief elected officials representing cities and counties X

Representatives of labor organizations X X

Representatives of entities with experience in youth activities X

Representatives of entities with experience in the delivery of workforce investment activities (including

executive officers of community colleges and community-based organizations)

X

Lead state agency officials with responsibilities for programs carried out by one-stop partners X

Other representatives designated by the Governor or local elected official (for example, juvenile justice and

economic development officials)

X X

Representatives of local educational entities (including school boards, adult education and literacy entities,

and postsecondary educational institutions)

X

Representatives of community-based organizations (including organizations representing veterans and

individual with disabilities)

X

Representatives of economic development agencies X

Representatives of each of the one-stop partners X

Source: The Workforce Investment Act and Labor’s regulations.

Private-sector leadership and involvement on these boards was seen as

crucial to shaping the direction of the workforce investment system. In

that respect, WIA required that private-sector representatives chair the

boards and make up the majority of board members. This would help

ensure that the private sector would be able to provide information on

available employment opportunities and expanding career fields, and help

 17Exceptions are allowed for board membership; for example, an individual seated on the

board can represent more than one entity or institution.
Page 13 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

develop ways to close the gap between job seekers and labor market

needs.

Although state and local boards have some responsibility for implementing

WIA, numerous public agencies and other entities in states and localities

operate the various programs that are mandatory partners under WIA. WIA

did not provide either the state or the local workforce investment boards

with control over the funds for most mandatory partner programs. They

only have limited authority concerning a portion of WIA funds designated

for adult and youth activities and, even then, only under certain

circumstances.

WIA required that the mandatory partners provide core services through

the one-stop, as well as support the one-stop’s operations. The mandatory

partners are generally making efforts to participate in accordance with the

requirements of WIA. However, the partners raised a number of concerns

that affect the level and type of participation they are able to provide and

may prevent them from achieving the vision of full integration of services.

Specifically, partners expressed concerns that their one-stop participation

could result in changes to their traditional service-delivery methods. These

changes might adversely affect their ability to serve their target

populations, lead them to serve individuals otherwise ineligible for their

services, or unnecessarily strain their financial resources. Implementers

acknowledged that WIA gave them the flexibility to address many of these

individual concerns at the local level. However, they noted that their

ability to establish and maintain effective one-stop operations is hampered

when each partner has significant limitations affecting how they can

participate and may be unwilling or unable to fully integrate services.

Available guidance from responsible federal agencies has not adequately

addressed many of these specific concerns, resulting in continued

confusion or reluctance to participate in the one-stops.

Many of the mandatory partners have raised concerns that altering their

existing service-delivery methods to participate in the one-stops and

respond to the vision of full integration could adversely affect the quality

of services they provide to their target populations. Since the

implementation of WIA, partners who serve special populations have

repeatedly raised these concerns in comments to Labor and to their parent

agencies. These issues were also raised in a study that found that

Vocational Rehabilitation partners were concerned that one-stop facilities

may not adequately accommodate the special needs of disabled

Participation in The

One-Stop Limited by

Programmatic and

Financial Concerns

Partners Concerned That

Changes to Traditional

Delivery Methods Could

Adversely Affect Target

Populations
Page 14 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

participants who may require more specialized services, equipment, or

personnel, such as staff who know sign language.18 As a result, even

though Vocational Rehabilitation staff were present in some form (either

through collocation or referral) at all of the nine one-stops we visited,

Vocational Rehabilitation continued to maintain their own preexisting

program offices to accommodate their eligible individuals’ special needs.

Staff told us that because WIA did not require offices to close, they

believed that it was prudent for them to maintain the existing servicedelivery structures so as not to limit the quality of services for their

eligible population.

Other partners have said that they did not see how participation in the

one-stop would benefit their eligible populations who were already

receiving services through the existing structures. For example, California

Department of Education officials told us that low-income and

disadvantaged populations in California already have full access to the

community college system at low or no cost, decreasing the incentive for

partners providing services under Perkins and the Adult Education and

Literacy Program to participate in the one-stops in that state. Other

partners questioned the value of participation because of the type of

individuals they serve or the method in which the services are provided.

Across the nine one-stops we visited, there were programs, such as the

Native American Program or the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker

Program, that may have had few eligible individuals in the area, which

decreased the value of one-stop participation unless there was a critical

mass of eligible individuals for them to serve at the one-stop. For example,

for seven of the nine one-stops we visited, the Native American Program

relied on referrals of potentially eligible individuals from other one-stop

partners rather than providing staff to collocate at the one-stops. Other

partners, such as those funded under the Community Services Block Grant

or carrying out HUD’s employment and training activities, are only

required to be involved if they offer employment or training services. This

may explain why partners representing the Community Services Block

Grant and HUD’s various workforce development initiatives were not

present at three of the nine one-stops we visited. At four one-stops, these

partners left information about their programs at the one-stop for

individuals to access independently and/or had the one-stop staff direct

 18Daniel O’Shea and Christopher T. King, The Workforce Investment Act of 1998:

Restructuring Workforce Development Initiatives in States and Localities (Albany, N.Y.:

The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, 2001).
Page 15 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

individuals to the grantees’ programs located elsewhere.19 Additionally,

according to HUD officials, in many cases, clients receiving HUD services,

such as housing assistance, are located in centralized areas, such as

subsidized housing projects. This means there are likely few potential

HUD clients that would enter a one-stop not located at a housing project,

and HUD clients located at housing projects would have little reason to go

to the one-stop for services.

Although state and local implementers reported that programs lack

sufficient guidance addressing how one-stop participation will meet the

needs of their eligible population, some have still found ways to encourage

programs to participate. State and local implementers said that Labor’s

and Education’s published guidance concerning how the programs can

provide their core services has not sufficiently identified ways to address

partners’ concerns about potential adverse effects on service to target

populations. However, a private-sector consultant providing assistance to

local areas said that in one local area, partners providing Vocational

Rehabilitation services are willing to participate in the one-stop because

staff became convinced that serving their eligible population there would

improve the quality of service for disabled individuals. Rather than

addressing partners’ concerns about the potential adverse effect their onestop participation may have on their eligible populations, some state and

local implementers have tried to encourage participation in one-stops by

offering incentives. For example, one local area allows partners to use

one-stop facilities to teach classes, while another allows partners to use

the facilities to assess eligible individuals’ literacy levels.

A number of partners with narrowly defined program requirements or

special target populations have expressed concerns to their parent

agencies and to us that altering traditional service-delivery methods to

participate in the one-stops or respond to the vision of full integration

could lead to a conflict with their own program’s requirements or

commitments regarding which individuals are eligible for the services they

offer. (See table 3.) As a result, even when programs met WIA’s

requirements to provide core services at the one-stop, they focused on

their own eligible populations. For the nine one-stops we visited, even

though a majority of the partners were participating, only a few of them,

 19Detailed information on the nature of partners’ participation at each of the one-stops

visited is found in appendix I.

Partners Concerned That

Changes May Lead to

Serving Ineligible

Individuals
Page 16 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

such as Employment Service, and WIA’s Adult and Dislocated Worker

programs, are authorized to serve a broad range of individuals who came

into the one-stop for services. The others served the more limited number

of individuals specifically eligible for their services. The latter partners

also tended to provide support services such as rent, rather than provide a

shared service, because they believed doing so would conflict with their

programs’ mandates.

Vocational Rehabilitation staff have raised concerns to both Education

and to us about how they can participate in the one-stop without violating

their program’s mandates. Vocational Rehabilitation staff serve disabled

individuals, yet many who come into the one-stop are either not disabled

or do not meet their order-of-selection requirements in which individuals

with the most significant disabilities are afforded priority for services. As a

result, they do not believe they can provide core services to everyone

coming into the one-stop. They also believe their order-of-selection

requirements make it difficult to provide shared services, such as

providing initial intake or serving as a greeter, because an individual—

even a disabled one—may not meet previously set order of selection

requirements. Other partners told us that they believe that all disabled

individuals should first be served by the Vocational Rehabilitation

program. They said that in some one-stops, an individual with disabilities

might be sent to the Vocational Rehabilitation staff only to be sent back to

WIA staff for core services. In response to concerns raised by Vocational

Rehabilitation staff, Education issued regulations reaffirming that

Vocational Rehabilitation staff must participate in the one-stop and

provide one-stop operational support services. However, the regulations

also noted that such participation must be consistent with existing

Vocational Rehabilitation programmatic requirements. The lack of explicit

direction leads to continued confusion and a general hesitancy to conduct

activities not normally provided in their existing offices. This may explain,

why at the one-stops we visited where Vocational Rehabilitation staff were

collocated, they focused on their eligible population only and did not

provide even permissible shared services, instead generally providing rent

as their support of the one-stop’s operations.

Veterans’ staff have also voiced their concerns regarding the relationship

between their program mandate and WIA. Partners providing veterans’

services were collocated at the nine one-stops we visited; however, the

veterans’ staff at those one-stops said they could not provide shared

services, such as initial intake, because that would mean serving the entire

range of one-stop users, whereas veterans’ staff are only allowed to serve

veterans. We were also told by local implementers that veterans’ staff may
Page 17 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

be unwilling to teach orientation or job preparation classes at the one-stop

to any nonveterans, even if there were veterans participating in the

classes. Labor officials with whom we spoke believed that it was

permissible for veterans’ staff to teach such classes as long as the majority

of students were veterans. However, the same officials said that having

veterans’ staff serve nonveterans was a violation of the program’s

mandate. In its comments to this report, Labor said that Veterans’

Employment and Training Service funding is provided to states to be used

exclusively for services to veterans and that if services were to be

provided to nonveterans, the funding connected with such service would

be disallowed. Labor has not published adequate guidance to help staff

resolve these specific issues. This may explain why there are varying

degrees of participation in local one-stops by veterans’ staff. For example,

we were told that there were one-stops where veterans’ staff provided

services to support the one-stop’s operations, such as teaching classes

attended by nonveterans.

Adult Education and Literacy providers, who participated in all nine onestops we visited, have also raised concerns about meeting both their own

program commitments and WIA’s requirements for one-stop participation.

WIA provides that, in competitively awarding funds to Adult Education

and Literacy providers, a preference must be given to those providers that

have a commitment to serve individuals in the community who are most in

need of literacy services, including low-income individuals and individuals

with minimal literacy skills. This means, in some cases, an individual at the

one-stop needing literacy training may not meet the standards that Adult

Education and Literacy providers apply to determine who will be given

priority for services. As a result, the individual may be sent to Adult

Education and Literacy for services, only to be sent back to WIA’s Adult

program for services. Although both Labor and Education have

emphasized that state and local partners must collaborate to identify and

address literacy and other service needs in a community, neither agency

has issued guidance to address those instances when such conflicts arise

due to such lack of planning between Adult Education and Literacy and

WIA.
Page 18 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Table 3: Programmatic Concerns Raised by Selected Partners and Related Guidance by Pertinent Federal Agencies

Program Potential conflict Agency guidance

Vocational

Rehabilitation

Services

Local Vocational Rehabilitation staff believe

that if they serve any disabled entering the

one-stop or if they provide shared services

to support the one-stop’s operation (such as

initial intake or being a greeter), they may be

serving nondisabled individuals or those that

do not meet their order-of-selection

requirements.

Education has said that it believes the Vocational Rehabilitation

program can comply with both WIA and Vocational Rehabilitation

requirements. Features such as common intake and referral are

permitted when determining individuals’ initial eligibility.

Local veterans’ staff believe that if they

provide shared services such as greeting

individuals at the one-stops, they may serve

nonveterans.

Veterans’ staff None

Local veterans’ staff believe that if they

teach a class, they may be serving

nonveterans.

None

Adult Education and

Literacy

Local Adult Education and Literacy staff

believe that if they accept individuals

referred by the one-stop regardless of need

level, they may go against Adult Education

and Literacy program commitments.

None

In some areas, partners tried to work around these limitations, such as by

using WIA funds to obtain an outside tutor or other appropriate service for

the individual. In other cases, Adult Education and Literacy charged a fee

for services they provided to WIA clients, when those services were not

consistent with service priorities.20 Education officials also advocated

various partners’ jointly financing a separate staff person to perform

greeter and initial intake services.

Many of WIA’s mandatory partners also identified resource constraints

that they believe affected their ability to participate in as well as fully

integrate their services into the one-stops. The first issue was the overall

funding levels. Several of the partners we interviewed said they were not

provided additional funding, which would have enabled them to provide

services at the one-stops in addition to covering the expenses associated

with their existing offices. This funding would have also allowed the

partners to devote significant resources to establishing sophisticated

 20Education officials said that this was permissible because they had recently removed the

regulation that prohibited charging a fee for Adult Education and Literacy services.

Partners Identified

Resource Constraints They

Believe Affect Their Ability

to Participate
Page 19 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

electronic links between existing offices and the one-stops.21 The

participants in the GAO-sponsored symposium also identified insufficient

funding levels as one of the top three implementation problems. Labor

also found that in many states, the agencies that administer the

Employment Service program had not yet been able to collocate with the

one-stops, although Labor’s regulations indicate that this is the preferred

method for providing core services. We were told by Employment Service

officials and one-stop administrators we spoke to that this was often

because they still had leases on existing facilities and could not afford to

incur the costs of breaking those leases. Limited funding made it even

more difficult to assign additional personnel to the one-stop or to devote

resources to developing electronic linkages with the one-stop. In the states

we visited, mandatory partners told us that limited funding was also a

primary reason why even when they collocated staff at the one-stop, they

did so on a limited or part-time basis.

Resource limitations may help explain why, at the nine one-stops we

visited, mandatory partners employed a wide range of methods to provide

the required support for the operation of the one-stops. Across all the sites

we visited, WIA’s Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and, across most

sites, Employment Service, were the only partners consistently making

monetary contributions to pay for the one-stops’ operational costs. Other

mandatory partners tended to make in-kind contributions—for example,

Perkins and Adult Education and Literacy partners provided computer or

GED training. Pennsylvania, however, was able to encourage all of its

partners to provide some type of financial support; while in California and

Vermont, many partners were not required to provide any financial

support.

Mandatory partners also identified how restrictions on the use of their

funds can serve as another constraint affecting both their participation in

the one-stops and the opportunity for full integration. For example, some

programs have caps on administrative spending that affect their ability to

contribute to the support of the one-stop’s operations. For example, WIA’s

Adult and Dislocated Worker programs have a 10-percent administrative

cap that supports both the one-stops’ operation and board staff at the local

level. According to a survey conducted for us by a national association, 61

 21Labor provided states with some initial funding assistance in the form of one-stop

implementation grants, but most states have nearly exhausted these funds. These funds

were spent primarily on the establishment of one-stop centers, not on altering delivery

systems of partners.
Page 20 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

of the 69 respondents stated that this cap limits their ability to serve both

functions, especially given the funding limitations of other programs. In

addition, Education reported that its regulations generally prohibit states

from using Education funds for acquisition of real property or for

construction. This means partners, such as those carrying out Perkins,

cannot provide funds to buy or refurbish a one-stop. Moreover, Adult

Education and Literacy and Perkins officials noted that they can only use

federal funds for the purpose of supporting the one-stop under WIA.

Because only a small portion of the funds they have available at the local

level come from federal sources, their ability to contribute is further

limited.

Several of the partners reported to us, and to Labor and Education, that

they are not sure how to define or account for allowable activities in the

WIA environment. For example, partners said existing guidance from the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Labor might not address

situations in which costs must be allocated across programs with different

or competing missions. In that respect, several implementers said that if

some programs are unwilling or unable to contribute, costs will tend to be

shifted to the Adult and Dislocated Worker partners—the programs having

the broadest mission of any partners at the one-stop and the greatest

responsibility for ensuring their effective operation. OMB requires that all

shared services be properly accounted for by programs, which means that

if a partner dedicated a copy machine to the one-stop, and that copy

machine was used by all partners, the partner providing the copy machine

must be reimbursed by all of the partners using it to remain in compliance

with OMB regulations. According to a number of partners, tracking that

kind of information is very difficult in this shared environment. This may

explain why, in most of the nine one-stops we visited, partners tended to

bring and use their own administrative supplies and materials, and shared

very few items. Partners have also stated that guidance from Labor does

not provide adequate detail about how to account for personnel who, in

the process of providing support services, may be providing services to

potentially ineligible populations. For example, if Vocational

Rehabilitation staff were willing to provide initial intake services at the

one-stop, it is not clear how the time spent would be reported if no

disabled individuals entered the one-stop. This may also help explain why,

in most of the nine one-stops that we visited, only those partners with

broad target populations provided shared services, such as intake. Labor

has convened a one-stop workgroup that, according to Labor officials,
Page 21 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

plans to continue examining these issues further, and work with OMB to

establish guidelines on what partners can and cannot do.22 In comments to

us, Labor also reported that it has drafted a financial management

technical assistance guide that provides information on financial and

administrative requirements applicable to some of the Labor programs. It

plans to finalize this guide and begin training in October 2001.

Despite these problems, we found several local areas that were making

efforts to compensate for funding limitations. For example, a number of

one-stops in Pennsylvania have brought in additional paying partners, such

as businesses and nonprofit entities, to provide funds to help support onestop operations. In California and Vermont, officials are using various state

sources of training funds to leverage WIA’s funds. In one of the states we

visited, local areas made a decision to classify expenses associated with

running the one-stop as programmatic rather than administrative so that

the recorded administrative costs can be kept to a minimum.

As a result of their experiences, state and local implementers have

developed a number of ideas for actions that they believe could reduce

what they see as programmatic and financial concerns affecting the level

and type of partner participation at the one-stop (as shown in table 4).

Although there was broad consensus among those we contacted that these

concerns needed to be addressed, there was not consensus on how best to

address these concerns, nor on how to maintain the flexibility that was

key to WIA’s implementation. Some of the ideas include providing more

specific guidance at the federal level to overcome these concerns, while

others call for legislative and/or regulatory action. These actions include

amending partners’ enabling legislation to mandate changes in their

service-delivery methods, requiring additional partners to participate, or

expanding the scope of partners’ allowable activities at the one-stop.

 22Labor has convened four workgroups, comprised of local, state, and federal subject-area

experts as a direct result of its recent survey of local areas. These workgroups have been

tasked with providing feedback and suggestions on subjects related to WIA

implementation. They are also tasked with developing technical assistance and training

strategies to assist the workforce investment system address the issues identified as

barriers to the successful implementation of WIA.

State and Local

Implementers’ Ideas for

Addressing Programmatic

and Financial Concerns
Page 22 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Table 4: State and Local Implementers’ Ideas for Addressing Partners’ Programmatic and Financial Concerns

Concern Ideas for addressing concern

The Congress should amend partners’ authorizing legislation to mandate that the old

delivery systems are changed or altogether eliminated.

The Congress and agencies should change requirements or regulations applying to

service-delivery to harmonize them with the reality of the one-stop.

The Congress, agencies, and local one-stops should give partners incentives for

participation and relocation to the one-stop (for example, good building, state-of-the-art

facilities, business centers to attract employers, the use of one-stop facility for partner

functions or for community events).

Changes to traditional delivery methods

could adversely affect target populations

The Congress and agencies should redefine administrative limitations to encourage

one-stop participation.

The Congress and agencies should broaden allowable responsibilities of partners’

employees (for example, if there are no veterans at a given time, veterans’ staff should

be allowed to carry out other duties at the one-stop).

Agencies should provide additional guidance on the federal level that encourages

partner participation.

Changes may lead to serving ineligibles

Agencies and states should encourage and reward creative local agreements between

partners and cross-training of staff.

The Congress and agencies should redefine program costs to include the costs

associated with running of the one-stops.

The Congress and agencies should make administrative caps across partners

consistent.

The Congress should mandate specific financial contributions for partners (for example,

a percentage of program funds).

States should get nonmandatory partners involved (for example, TANF, Food Stamps,

etc.).

Agencies should disseminate best-practice information about cost-sharing.

The Congress should create a separate funding stream for one-stop costs.

The Congress should provide program funds through block grants, at least for Labor

programs.

Resource constraints affect participation

Agencies, along with states and local areas, should create a common intake form that

all partners would use for their participants’ assessments, thus limiting expense

associated with each partner performing this task independently.

WIA job seekers may have fewer training options to choose from because

training providers are reducing the number of course offerings they make

available under WIA. According to training providers, WIA’s data

collection and reporting requirements are burdensome and they question

whether it is worthwhile to assume this burden because so few individuals

have been referred to them under WIA. Among the workgroups Labor has

established is one to address training provider concerns, but the

workgroup has not yet provided detailed guidance to states and localities.

If these data collection and reporting requirements succeed in

discouraging training providers from participating, WIA’s goal that job

seekers receive enhanced choice in training options might be jeopardized.

Training Options May

Become Limited as

Training Providers

Drop Out of the

System
Page 23 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

According to training providers and other state and local implementers we

interviewed, WIA’s data collection and reporting requirements are

burdensome for three reasons. First, providers have to collect data on a

potentially large number of students. Second, there are problems with the

methods available for collecting these data. Third, WIA data collection and

reporting requirements are different from those of other programs for

which training providers must also collect data. Moreover, training

providers did not necessarily see the data they are required to collect as

accurate and useful for assessing their performance.

Training providers have voiced a number of concerns to us, and to

Education, about the fact that the number of students for whom they must

potentially collect data presents a significant burden for them. First, WIA

requires that training providers report program completion, placement,

and wage data for all students in a class, regardless of whether they were

WIA-funded. In other words, if one student in a class of 100 was WIAfunded, the training provider would be required to provide data on all 100

students. WIA also requires training providers to report additional

information on WIA-funded students within 6 months of completion of the

class. Part of the burden perceived by training providers may stem from

their belief that WIA required them to perform this 6-month followup on

all of the students in a particular course. Although WIA did not require this

type of followup, it did provide the Governor, or the local board, with the

option of requiring a provider to submit this additional information. WIA

further provided that if such a request imposed extraordinary costs on

providers, the Governor or the local board should provide access to costeffective methods for the collection of this information, or supply

additional resources to the provider to aid in the collection.23

Second, training providers have reported that the burden associated with

collecting these data raises concerns. WIA did not specify how training

providers would collect or report this information. In a number of states,

training providers were providing student information, such as social

security numbers (SSNs), to state agencies responsible for WIA

implementation, such as state departments of labor. These agencies then

attempted to match SSNs with unemployment insurance (UI) wage

records (which are based on SSNs) to acquire the necessary data for WIA

 23The training providers who believed they needed to perform the 6-month followup on all

of the students in a course were unsure whether their Governor had requested this

additional information.

Training Providers See

Required Data Collection

and Reporting as

Burdensome
Page 24 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

as well as non-WIA participants. Training providers said that providing

SSN information to states might be efficient because states are required to

use UI data in assessing their own performance under WIA and would be

able to incorporate the training provider outcome data in their ongoing

data analysis efforts. Moreover, because states are required by WIA to

verify the data provided by training providers, having access to SSNs

would facilitate that process. However, training providers highlighted

limitations in the UI data that needed to be addressed through additional

data collection. For example, the UI data do not include federal

employees, military personnel, farm workers, the incarcerated, the selfemployed, and those employed out-of-state. Moreover, there is a

significant time lag in the availability of the data.

Training providers also highlighted privacy concerns regarding the

provision of SSNs to state agencies. They said the Family Educational

Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) generally prohibits an educational

institution from disclosing personally identifiable information (such as an

SSN) from individual student records without prior written consent from

the student unless the disclosure meets one of a number of exceptions

envisioned by the law and implementing regulations (such as provision of

the information to Education). In January 2001, Labor and Education

issued joint guidance stating that certain exceptions that could allow

educational institutions to disclose this information without a student’s

prior consent were applicable to the WIA data collection reporting

requirements. However, confusion and inconsistency continues within

both federal and state Education departments as to the use of this

exception. There is also confusion about the consequences of utilizing this

exception, with some state-level education officials believing that a

student could take them to court, alleging that disclosure, without the

student’s consent, violates FERPA or similar state-level privacy laws.

While several courts have held that there is no private right of action under

FERPA, there have been cases where individuals have alleged that

violations of FERPA are violations of their civil rights. According to one

Education official, a court recently awarded a student $450,000 for the

unauthorized disclosure of information from the student’s records by an

educational institution.

When training providers were unwilling, or believed that they were unable,

to provide SSNs to the state, they used other methods to gather the

information, which they said were even more resource-intensive. For

example, in two of the states we visited, training providers told us that

they planned to obtain the required information by calling all students who

attended the course. This plan required them not only to track where the
Page 25 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

students were located, but expend significant resources to call a sufficient

number of them to acquire a representative sample. They said they did not

have the staff available to collect data in this manner.

Third, training providers reported that WIA’s data collection and reporting

requirements are similar, but not exactly the same, as those of other

programs, posing an additional data collection burden on providers. This

is especially true for Education’s Perkins program, which generally allows

state discretion as to what and how outcome data will be collected. For

example, in Texas, Perkins and WIA have different definitions for a

program completer. The state defined completion for most WIA-eligible

training programs as receiving a 9-hour credit certificate, for example,

enough training to get a job. For Perkins, however, the state set its lowest

completion point as receiving a 15-hour credit certificate from an array of

state-approved courses, for example, courses that would lead to student

attainment of a state-established skill proficiency. Moreover, WIA’s data

collection requirements often differ in scope from other programs. For

example, Adult Education and Literacy providers must develop outcome

information for all students enrolled in adult education and literacy

programs. WIA requires outcome information for students in different

groupings, for example, only in particular courses.

Training providers did not necessarily see the data they are required to

collect by WIA as accurate and useful for assessing their performance.

This perception made them less willing to take on this data collection

burden. For example, several community colleges told us that WIA’s

measure of program completer fails to reflect how a community college

serves individuals. For example, a student may leave a course midway

through the class because the student had acquired the necessary skills, or

had obtained employment. Thus, the community college may have met the

needs of the individual, even though the individual did not necessarily

complete the course.

As a result of these concerns, training providers are withdrawing their

participation from the WIA system, especially because they have access to

the same populations of students through other programs, such as

Welfare-to-Work, whose data collection requirements may be less

burdensome. In fact, we found that the number of providers and course

offerings on the ETPL has decreased in many locations. For example,

between July 2000 and July 2001, Vermont’s list decreased from offering

600 programs by 80 providers to offering 158 programs by 46 providers.
Page 26 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

In some locations, state agencies and training providers are trying to work

together to overcome some of these concerns. For example, in California,

community colleges in one county have chosen to classify WIA-funded

training participants as being enrolled in a separate college. Only the name

of this college, and not the name of the community college where the

classes were actually held, has been placed on the ETPL, easing the

burden on providers who previously had to collect data on non-WIA

students as well. In addition, WIA allows local boards to accept certain

other program-specific performance information for the purposes of

fulfilling WIA’s eligibility requirements, if the information is “substantially

similar” to what WIA requires. In this regard, California’s education

community received approval from the state workforce investment board

to use Perkins’ outcome data as substantially similar measures until the

state is able to fully implement other outcome data measures. In addition,

at least one state was able to address concerns about privacy protections

under FERPA because the agency receiving and analyzing the data was

located within the state Department of Education.

Labor has established a workgroup—its adult and dislocated worker

workgroup—to address many of the issues that training providers

described as burdensome. Labor’s goal is to craft solutions that do not

penalize states already collecting the data successfully. However, the

workgroup has no deadline for completion and does not include all the

key players. For example, the workgroup does not include training

provider representatives, although Labor officials said they invited an

association representing community colleges to meetings. However, the

lack of formal membership of these key players may limit the value of any

solutions developed or the willingness of training providers to adopt those

solutions. Moreover, the workgroup has not yet provided guidance, such

as products and materials on subsequent eligibility and consumer report

requirements. Some state and local implementers we spoke to felt that the

continued confusion surrounding the provision of SSNs to noneducational

entities needed to be resolved at the state or federal level through a

mechanism stronger than guidance, such as through an amendment to

FERPA itself.

Training providers have said that the data collection requirements are

even more burdensome given that they have received few job seekers for

training since WIA was implemented in their states. According to regional

Labor officials and several of the national associations we interviewed,

training providers are receiving relatively few training referrals under WIA.

For the nine one-stops we visited, training providers had been sent, on

Data Collection Burden

Exacerbated Because Few

Individuals Sent to

Training
Page 27 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

average, only six individuals with ITAs since July 2000. Moreover, officials

from a local area encompassing nine counties told us that their two onestops had provided no ITAs to individuals until March 2001, and had sent a

total of 11 individuals to training offered by four of its eligible providers

between March and July 2001. In addition, in some of the local areas we

visited, there were financial limitations on the amounts of the ITAs, which

did not necessarily cover the cost of some of the course offerings on the

ETPL. Therefore, not all classes on the ETPL were available to some WIAfunded individuals. In addition, training providers are not always able to

recoup the costs they are expending to collect and report the required data

unless they build this extra cost into the cost of training.

There are a variety of reasons why the number of job seekers who have

been sent to training is low. These reasons were identified by the state and

local implementers as well as several national associations we

interviewed, and by the respondents to the surveys conducted for us. First,

local areas have generally adopted a “work-first” approach to

implementing WIA, encouraging job seekers to try to obtain employment

without training. In that respect, local areas have set a level for what

constitutes a “sustainable wage” (the minimum wage level at which a job is

considered to provide for self-sufficiency and qualify as an acceptable

placement for a job seeker) that allows them greater flexibility in placing

an individual in a job without training. We also found that many local areas

required job seekers to perform a number of activities before they were

able to qualify for training. For example, job seekers were often required

to spend a certain amount of time looking for a job, or go on a certain

number of interviews before they could be approved to receive training

with WIA funds. This may have also reduced the number of individuals

who received training.

Second, some state and local implementers said that, given the strong

economy, employers were more interested in hiring workers than waiting

for them to complete training classes.24 Third, according to local

implementers, the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs have had little

money left over for training because they, along with the Employment

Service, have had to consistently bear a greater share of the costs

associated with establishing and maintaining the one-stop, as well as

 24It is possible that, in these situations, the job seeker may receive customized training or

on-the-job training, both of which are not subject to the ITA requirements. We did not find

anyone tracking how much training is occurring through these methods.
Page 28 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

providing core and intensive services to job seekers. Moreover, WIA

required using alternative funding sources, such as Pell grants (a form of

federal financial aid available to students), to leverage their training

dollars, but state and local implementers were uncertain whether they

could do this.25 Finally, according to the state and local implementers we

interviewed and the national associations representing them, the

establishment of performance measures for adult and dislocated workers

may be discouraging one-stops from placing individuals into training. Due

to the fact that incentives and financial sanctions, such as a loss of

program funds, are now linked to performance on a series of measures

(for example, employment entry, earnings gain, or job retention), onestops may be hesitant to send individuals to training who, in the minds of

one-stop administrators, are not likely to complete training and receive a

job that meets performance measures. This particularly affects certain

types of individuals, such as incumbent workers whose wage gain may not

meet performance levels, or hard-to-serve individuals who may be diverted

to other partners’ programs for training or placement.

As a result of their experiences, state and local implementers have

developed a number of ideas for actions that they believe could address

the concerns raised by training providers and other state and local

implementers (as shown in table 5). Although there was broad consensus

among those we contacted that these concerns needed to be addressed,

there was not consensus on which ideas had greater potential to address

these concerns, nor which ones would best maintain the flexibility that

was key to WIA’s implementation. Some of the ideas included actions that

could be taken on the local level, such as the suggestion that one-stops

increase their use of customized and on-the-job training in partnership

with training providers. Others would require regulatory or legislative

action, such as giving training providers additional funds to offset the cost

of data collection or amending FERPA to allow for the use of SSNs to

satisfy WIA’s data collection requirements.

 25This confusion centers on how sources of funding should be prioritized. For example,

WIA specifically states that training services should be limited to individuals who are

unable to obtain other grant assistance for such services or who require assistance beyond

that made available under other grant assistance programs. The Higher Education Act

(HEA) prohibits consideration of HEA student aid (for example, Pell grants, among others)

in determining the need or eligibility of any person for benefits or assistance, or the amount

of such benefits or assistance, under any federal, state, or local program financed in whole

or in part with federal funds.

State and Local

Implementers’ Ideas for

Addressing Training

Provider Concerns
Page 29 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Table 5: State and Local Implementers’ Ideas for Addressing Training Provider Participation Concerns

Concern Ideas for addressing concern

The Congress and agencies should allow training providers to

collect data on a sample of WIA or non-WIA participants.

Agencies should focus on one aspect of performance measures

and allow locals flexibility in developing remaining measures.

The Congress should eliminate Governor’s authority to require

additional performance data.

The Congress should extend the initial eligibility period before

training provider performance requirements go into effect.

The Congress or the agencies should mandate or develop single

data-collection method using UI or other data.

States should allow schools to access wage records.

Agencies should develop a common set of data collection

requirements for training providers.

Training providers see required data collection and reporting as

burdensome

The Congress should amend FERPA to allow for the use of SSNs

to satisfy WIA’s data collection requirements.

Data collection burden exacerbated because few individuals sent

to training

The Congress and/or agencies should allow for additional funds to

go to providers to cover costs associated with collecting

performance data.

Private-sector representatives we spoke with are frustrated with the

operations of the workforce investment boards under WIA, believing that

the boards are too large to effectively address their concerns, and that

board-related entities created to help deal with the size of the boards may

not reflect employer views. Labor’s guidance in this area has not

specifically addressed these issues. Although some private-sector

representatives still appear to be making efforts to meet WIA’s

requirement of private-sector leadership, they told us that, if their

concerns are not addressed, they may decide to decrease their

involvement or stop participating. This could limit the ability of the boards

to develop and establish the strong links with the business community

needed to develop workforce development strategies that effectively

address the needs of all individuals.

Based on the results of surveys and reports of national associations

representing workforce investment boards, and according to the majority

of private-sector employers and other state and local implementers we

interviewed, the large number of members on boards has made it very

difficult to conduct operations efficiently. For example, according to a

national board association, the average number of members on workforce

boards exceeds 40 in most of the places where new boards have been

established since the passage of WIA. In our work, we found that Vermont

had over 40 seats on its state board, California had 64, and Pennsylvania

Current Operations of

Workforce Investment

Boards and Affiliated

Entities May

Discourage PrivateSector Participation

Private-Sector

Representatives Believe

Large Boards Preclude

Efficient Operations
Page 30 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

had 33. Local boards can be just as large. For example, we found one in

Pennsylvania with 43 members and two in California with 45 members.

The size of these boards is especially large in comparison to various

private-sector corporate boards. For example, General Motors’ board of

directors has 13 members, while Intel’s board has 11.

We were told that the size of the boards makes it difficult to recruit the

necessary private-sector board members for several reasons. First,

because private-sector representatives must make up the majority of

board membership, the larger the board, the greater the requirement for

private-sector members, which increases the difficulty of recruiting the

requisite number of private-sector members. We found several boards that

had been unable to achieve the private-sector majority required by WIA.

For example, Vermont’s state board had about 42 percent private-sector

membership, although the state is working to fill additional private-sector

vacancies. Pennsylvania and California used private nonprofit institutions

to achieve their private-sector majorities. Labor’s survey of 132 local areas

found that local areas were more successful recruiting private-sector

representatives who had retired than those who were still working, which

may limit the current knowledge of workforce issues brought by the

private-sector to the board.

Second, the large number of board members makes it difficult to set up

meetings. For example, officials in one local workforce investment area

said they attempted to meet quarterly to accommodate the schedules of

the various members. However, because members often are dispersed

throughout the state, it may be difficult to handle the logistics for so many

participants, or to find locations for the board meetings that are

convenient to all members and do not pose transportation obstacles. If

members are unable to attend the meetings, boards may not be able to

achieve a quorum (usually a simple majority), and therefore may be unable

to make decisions.

Third, the large number of board members makes it difficult to run

meetings efficiently. It may be difficult to ensure that the numerous board

members all have the same information prior to the meeting, and to keep

members apprised of the board’s activities. In addition, it is difficult to

reach agreement on important issues because having more members

results in having more opinions that need to be addressed and reconciled.

These difficulties have been especially prevalent this past year when

boards have had to perform many administrative tasks, such as developing

strategic plans or certifying one-stops, in order to set up the WIA system.

Private-sector representatives and other implementers in the three states
Page 31 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

we visited said that the boards did not operate in an efficient manner. This

inefficiency led to meetings that focused on administration and process

rather than on outcomes and broad strategic goals, both of which the

private-sector representatives see as an appropriate role for a board of

directors.

Some board members and association representatives indicated that it

would be easier to deal with the large size of the board if they could meet

in smaller groups outside of the formal board meetings to discuss

important issues. At the same time, WIA’s requirement that boards make

available to the public, information regarding their activities through open

meetings may preclude such action. State and local implementers in one

state told us that they believe WIA’s sunshine provision prohibits decisions

from being made in private, and has prevented board members from

meeting in smaller groups to discuss issues. In one state we visited,

employers told us that a required 72-hour public comment period for any

agenda item precludes board members from putting on the agenda any

important items that might have come up at the last moment.

Despite these difficulties, we found several local areas making efforts to

address the problems associated with large boards. For example, some

local areas have divided their boards into smaller committees focusing on

specific issues, thus increasing member participation and creating a more

manageable governance structure. As the next section shows, however,

the downside of this approach is the potential dilution of private-sector

influence if private-sector board members are not included as members of

the committees. To make a state board smaller, more manageable, and

more efficient, one state board chair said he hopes to remove, but not

replace, board members who fail to take their participation seriously.

Labor has contracted with organizations, offered training sessions, and

developed publications that provide information on how boards should

operate. For example, it has contracted with a coalition of 20 privatesector organizations to produce publications and guides on WIA.

However, it has not provided guidance specifically on ways to ensure that

boards maintain private sector leadership. It has also recently formed a

workforce investment board workgroup, one of six workgroups formed

since its implementation status survey, to consider these issues.
Page 32 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

According to our interviews with private-sector representatives and

private-sector information from national associations, additional

structures that have been developed to accomplish many of the day-to-day

board activities may not reflect or may dilute employer’s input into the

system.

Virtually every state and local board has assigned staff that is responsible

for carrying out much of the detail associated with the board operations,

such as setting up meetings, developing the agenda, and ensuring that

boards stay current with compliance issues.26 Private-sector

representatives were concerned, however, that the staff may lack

knowledge of or interest in the needs of the private sector.

According to private-sector representatives and other implementers, staff

are often employed by the public-sector agency responsible for carrying

out WIA’s Adult, Dislocated Worker and other mandatory partners’

programs in each state, which in most cases is a labor or human services

agency. As a result, private-sector and other representatives expressed

concerns regarding how staff can carry out their primary focus of serving

the board when they report to supervisors in their respective agencies. In

that respect, we were told that staff sometimes dismissed issues that

private-sector representatives tried to raise because the issues were not

deemed important by the state agency. In two states, private-sector and

other representatives also complained that staff failed to provide them

with key information for the board meetings early enough to allow them to

prepare, leaving them unable to participate at the board meetings to the

same extent as public officials. Private-sector representatives also

questioned whether the existing public-sector staff have sufficient

understanding of the environment in which business representatives

operate. Finally, although staff generally offer extensive expertise of

working with job training programs, staff experienced in prior workforce

systems may be hesitant to embrace WIA’s vision of a more private-sectordriven and strategic system.

Labor has provided little guidance or information in this area, but there are

some locations that appear to have hired staff that adequately represents

the private sector. For example, in a local area in California, the WIA funds

have been provided to the Office of Economic Development, from which

 26In some cases, the size of the staff can be large itself; for example, there are 25 staff

supporting California’s state board.

Private-Sector

Representatives Believe

Board Staff and Committee

Structures May Not Reflect

Employer Interests

Board Staff May Not Reflect

Employer Views
Page 33 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

the staff originate, to ensure that the board staff have a private-sector

focus. In a local area in Pennsylvania, staff is employed by an incorporated

board, which gives the staff greater independence from the state public

agencies.

To address many of the difficulties stemming from the large size of the

boards, many states and localities have established committees under the

auspices of the board. Committees are generally established to address

particular topics, such as youth activities or performance measures, with

the goal that the committees will research the issues and decide upon a

particular course of action for the board to take.

However, according to our interviews with private-sector representatives

and survey results, the establishment of committees to address particular

topics of interest for the board could serve to dilute private-sector input

into key decisions. There is no requirement that the private-sector

members chair these committees or even be included on them. WIA is

silent on the establishment of the committees and the form that they

should take, but some private-sector representatives told us that, given the

important role these committees play in influencing board activities, they

felt alienated when they were underrepresented or not represented on the

committees. In all of the states we visited, we found that committees at

both the state and local level had little private-sector membership. Figure 1

shows that only one of the state board committees, each labeled with their

specific committee name, had more than 50 percent private-sector

membership.

Committee Structure May

Dilute Employer Input
Page 34 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Figure 1: Composition of Committees at the State Level in Vermont, California, and

Pennsylvania

In the states we visited, we also found that there were public-sector

committee members who were not board members. According to privatesector representatives in one state, this membership problem further

decreases private-sector input in the system. At the same time, however,

ensuring private-sector involvement on these committees is problematic,

since private-sector employers serve on the boards as volunteers in

addition to their regular responsibilities, with time constraints often

precluding them from attending both board and committee meetings.

Labor has provided technical assistance to state and local boards, and has

arranged peer assistance and provided information on promising practices

to help local boards deal with some of these challenges. However,

information is still lacking on how to balance the requirements of the

board operations with the needs of the private sector. Despite this, some

locations appear to be making progress in ensuring private-sector input to

committees. For example, some local areas in California are requiring

committees to have a business majority and define a quorum in terms of

the business majority.
Page 35 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

As a result of their experiences, state and local implementers have

developed a number of ideas for actions that they believe could enhance

the role of the private-sector on workforce investment boards (as shown

in table 6). Although there was broad consensus among those we

contacted that these concerns needed to be addressed, there was not

consensus on which ideas had greater potential to address these concerns,

nor which ones would best maintain the flexibility that was key to WIA’s

implementation. Some of the ideas focused on those actions that could be

taken at the local level, such as clearly delineating the responsibilities of

staff members to ensure a private-sector focus. Others may involve

legislative or regulatory action, such as giving responsibility for WIA

programs to public-sector entities (for example, economic development

agencies) or nonprofit entities that reflect employer outlook, or limiting

authority of public-sector staff. In addition, some state and local

implementers suggested mandating a maximum number of staff members

and providing financial incentives to business members to take over the

tasks currently performed by the staff.

State and Local

Implementers’ Ideas for

Enhancing Private-Sector

Participation
Page 36 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Table 6: State and Local Implementers’ Ideas for Enhancing Private-Sector Participation

Concern Ideas for addressing concerns

The Congress should leave membership decisions to states and

locals.

The Congress and agencies should alter interpretation of WIA’s

sunshine provision or clarify the requirements to allow board

members to convene outside of regularly scheduled public

meetings.

Private-sector representatives believe large boards preclude

efficient operations

The Congress should allow states and locals to give more weight

to private-sector votes on boards that may not have a business

majority.

The Congress, agencies, or states should clearly delineate

responsibilities of staff to the Board to limit staff authority and

require greater control by the private sector.

The Congress should mandate that nonpublic agency

representatives be included as staff to the Board.

The Congress and agencies should limit size of staff.

The Congress and agencies should require Governors to give

responsibility for WIA to Chambers of Commerce, State

Departments of Commerce, or other entities with a business

outlook, as well as hire staff from those entities

Agencies should limit the number of staff who have worked under

the prior workforce development system

The Congress and agencies should mandate private-sector

leadership and majority on committees

The Congress should mandate a business majority for quorum.

Private-sector representatives believe board staff and committee

structures may not reflect employer interests

Agencies should allow for separate private-sector advisory

committees even if the participants are not on the larger board.

The workforce development system WIA sought to create represents a sea

change for workforce development, not only because it attempted to

significantly change how employment and training services are provided,

but also because it provided significant latitude to those implementing

WIA at the state and local level. Given the early stage of this process, and

the new and additional partners involved in the process, it is not surprising

that implementation has been affected by concerns over the new

requirements. Unless these concerns are addressed in some fashion, there

is a risk that the flexibility provided to states and local areas under WIA,

instead of fostering innovation, will continue to lead to confusion,

unnecessary burden, and resistance to change. Moreover, although states

and localities will continue to participate as required by WIA, the vision for

one-stops—full integration—may not be achieved. In effect, complying

with WIA could result in additional requirements rather than the

replacement of traditional service-delivery structures. The opportunity for

the federal government to foster fundamental change in the workforce

development system of the future could be lost.

Conclusions
Page 37 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

While state and local implementers agreed that these concerns needed to

be addressed, there was no consensus on a single course of agency or

congressional action that would be most effective in addressing these

concerns. Moreover, some of the concerns may stem from confusion about

what states and localities can already do to embrace WIA’s requirements.

As a result, states and localities need more time to fully understand and

embrace these new ways of operating in conjunction with appropriate

guidance and technical assistance. Guidance from all responsible agencies

can go a long way towards addressing concerns; it will also help identify

issues that may require action beyond guidance. First, the vision of a

seamless system of employment and training services depends upon states

and localities having better information about the benefits of integrating

their services at one-stops. Second, states and localities need better

information on cost-effective methods for training provider data collection

and reporting. They need tools to address the burden associated with

conflicting program requirements and clarification about the confusion

surrounding the allowed use of SSNs under FERPA and related policy

guidance to meet data collection requirements. Also, training providers

need another year of initial eligibility exempt from the data collection

requirements while they work with state and local implementers to

explore ways to resolve data collection difficulties. Until these issues are

resolved, dropping training providers from consideration or having them

withdraw their services when the initial eligibility period ends would be at

odds with WIA’s goal of providing job seekers with better training options.

Third, unless action is taken to ensure that the states and localities

understand and can implement ways to achieve effective workforce

investment board operations consistent with private-sector needs, WIA’s

requirement of private-sector leadership for this new workforce system

may be at risk. Moreover, the private sector has the necessary labor

market knowledge to create a strategic workforce investment system,

without which the new system may be adversely affected.

To facilitate the implementation of WIA, as well as to help state and local

implementers move closer to the vision of a fully integrated system, we

recommend that the Secretary of Labor, along with the Secretaries of

Education, HHS, and HUD, jointly explore the specific programmatic and

financial concerns identified by state and local implementers that affect

their ability to fully integrate their services at the one-stops, and identify

specific ways in which these concerns can be overcome.

Recommendations to

Executive Agencies
Page 38 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

To help ensure that there is a sufficient quality and quantity of training

programs and providers available for individuals, we recommend that the

Secretary of Labor, along with the Secretary of Education

• Disseminate best-practice information on cost-effective methods being

used by states and localities to collect and report the required training

provider data;

• Address confusion arising from dual reporting for WIA requirements and

those for other education programs; and

• Establish a unified federal position on whether SSNs can be provided by

training providers to state agencies (such as departments of labor) for the

purposes of meeting WIA’s data collection requirements, if it is determined

that the most cost-effective data collection methods require the use of

SSNs.

To help maintain private-sector leadership in the system, the Secretary of

Labor should disseminate information on successful practices by states

and local areas to ensure effective board operations and the effective

operations of their affiliated entities consistent with strong private-sector

leadership.

To ensure that training providers are not unnecessarily withdrawing their

course offerings, the Congress may wish to allow training providers to

remain on the list of eligible providers for another year without meeting all

the data collection requirements while they work with state and local

implementers to explore ways to resolve data collection difficulties.

We provided a draft of this report to Labor, Education, HHS and HUD for

review and comment. The comments from the agencies are reproduced in

appendixes II through V, respectively. Labor appreciated our work in

identifying issues and problems associated with WIA implementation, and

Education said that the report and recommendations provided insight on

ways it can help state and local implementers. HHS, which is responsible

for one of the mandatory partner programs, concurred with the

recommendation that the respective Secretaries jointly explore the

specific programmatic barriers affecting programs’ ability to achieve the

vision of full integration. Neither Labor, Education, nor HUD responded

directly to any of our recommendations.

The majority of the comments made by Labor, Education, and HUD

reiterated the difficulties associated with WIA implementation. Labor said

Matter for

Congressional

Consideration

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
Page 39 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

that the specific issues we identified in the report must be considered in

the broader context of the massive reform of the workforce development

system anticipated by this landmark legislation. We believe that our report

highlights the difficulties that states and localities are having implementing

many of these new, complicated requirements and discusses those issues

that need to be addressed to ensure successful implementation. According

to Labor, integrating the many partners into one system is a challenging

task, and it has no authority to direct or mandate participation of others,

nor can it deliver guidance that must come from other partners. For WIA

to succeed, partnership among agencies at the federal level is key, which is

why we recommended that the respective Secretaries work together

jointly to address limitations to participation.

Education said it was concerned that our report would set a benchmark

for measuring the success of WIA against the vision of full integration,

rather than the coordination that was required by the law. We did not

intend to imply that full integration is the only option for participation.

However, because Labor highlighted full integration as its ultimate vision,

our report sought to identify those issues that would serve as impediments

to achieving full integration. If policymakers want full integration to be a

viable option, the issues we highlighted in our report—and reiterated by

Education in its comments—need to be considered and addressed.

Education also highlighted the concerns we raised in our report

concerning privacy protections under FERPA, saying that the protection

under FERPA cannot be ignored or sacrificed when faced with the

separate, independent challenge of meeting the accountability

requirements of WIA. This comment supports our recommendation that

Education and Labor work together to establish a unified federal position

on what is allowed under FERPA for purposes of WIA.

HUD’s comments focused on its viability as a partner in the one-stops.

Although HUD noted that it is participating in interagency workgroups and

has provided guidance, it said that WIA did not directly apply to the

majority of HUD’s programs, pointing out that HUD’s programs differ

significantly from those of Labor and Education. It also suggested that

none of its workforce development initiatives have a primary mission of

employment and training. HUD’s response reiterates the need for it to

work to resolve the programmatic limitations that affect the ability of its

programs from participating in the one-stop system.

Labor said our report did not fully reflect the unprecedented level of

guidance and technical assistance that it and its federal and state partners

have provided to state and local implementers since the passage of WIA.
Page 40 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Throughout the report, we clarified this point and provided more

examples of such guidance. However, much of the guidance that Labor has

issued to date has focused on helping state and local implementers set up

the system. State and local implementers now need guidance that

addresses concerns specific to a system that is in the critical early stages

of operation, such as how to effectively collect performance data and

operate boards.

Both Education and Labor highlighted the importance of state and local

flexibility for WIA implementation. Labor said that our report needs to

more explicitly acknowledge this flexibility, and that the differences we

observed among various one-stop systems reflect decisions based on state

and local circumstances to achieve state and locally established goals. We

believe our report fully acknowledges that WIA did not prescribe how

states and locals would implement WIA. We did note, however, that

flexibility without guidance or implementation assistance can sometimes

lead to confusion. Education and Labor both believed that detailed

guidance was not compatible with the flexibility WIA affords states and

localities. However, we believe that guidance can be detailed without

being prescriptive, and that federal partners play a vital role in helping

state and local implementers optimize the flexibility provided by WIA.

In addition to these comments, each of the agencies provided technical

comments that we incorporated, where appropriate.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days after the

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

Labor, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Housing and Urban

Development, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, appropriate

congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will also make

copies available to others upon request.
Page 41 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any

questions about this report. Other contacts and staff acknowledgements

are listed in appendix VI.

Sigurd R. Nilsen

Director, Education, Workforce

 and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Presence of Partners at Nine OneStops and Method of Core Service Provision

Page 42 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Table 7 shows the range of methods used by partners to meet the

requirement of core service provision through the one-stops at each of the

nine locations we visited.

Table 7: Partner Programs and Method of Core Service Provision at Nine One-Stops

One-stops where the program was providing core services through...a

Program

One-stops

where

program

present Collocation Referral

Electronic

linkages Contract

Mandatory programs

WIA Adult 9 9 - - -

WIA Dislocated 9 9 - - -

WIA Youth 9 9 - - -

Employment Service 9 9 - - -

Trade Adjustment Assistance 9 9 - - -

Employment and training services to

veterans

9 9

Unemployment Insurance 9 3 - 6 -

Welfare-to-Work 9 7 2 - -

Vocational Rehabilitation 9 7 3 1 -

Adult Education and Literacy 9 5 4 1 -

Senior Community Service

Employment Program

9 6- 21

Carl D. Perkins Vocational

Education

8 44 - -

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker

Program

7 53 - -

Native American Program 8 2 7 1 -

Job Corps 7 2 4 - 1

HUD-administered employment and

training

6 14 2 -

Community Services Block Grant 6 2 4 1 -

Nonmandatory programsb

School-to-Work 4 2 1 2 -

Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families

9 54 - 2

Food stamps 7 2 3 - 2

Transportation 2 - 2 - -

Employers 1 1 - - -

a

These columns may add up to more than nine because partners may be using more than one

method of core service provision at a one-stop.

b

These were some of the nonmandatory partners we observed; this is not an exhaustive list of the

various nonmandatory partners participating in one-stops.

Appendix I: Presence of Partners at Nine

One-Stops and Method of Core Service

Provision
Appendix II: Comments From the Department

of Labor

Page 43 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Appendix II: Comments From the

Department of Labor
Appendix II: Comments From the Department

of Labor

Page 44 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues
Appendix III: Comments From the

Department of Education

Page 45 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Appendix III: Comments From the

Department of Education
Appendix III: Comments From the

Department of Education

Page 46 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues
Appendix III: Comments From the

Department of Education

Page 47 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues
Appendix III: Comments From the

Department of Education

Page 48 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues
Appendix III: Comments From the

Department of Education

Page 49 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues
Appendix IV: Comments From the Department

of Health and Human Services

Page 50 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Appendix IV: Comments From the

Department of Health and Human Services
Appendix IV: Comments From the Department

of Health and Human Services

Page 51 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues
Appendix V: Comments From the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Page 52 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Appendix V: Comments From the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development
Appendix V: Comments From the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Page 53 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues
Appendix V: Comments From the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Page 54 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues
Appendix V: Comments From the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Page 55 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

Page 56 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Lori Rectanus, (202) 512-9847

Monika Gomez, (202) 512-9062

Natalya Bolshun also made significant contributions to this report, in all

aspects of the work throughout the review. In addition, Dianne Murphy

Blank, Andrea Sykes, and Andrew Von Ah, aided in the gathering and

analyses of information collected on our site visits, Jessica Botsford and

Richard Burkard, provided legal support, and Patrick DiBattista assisted in

report and message development.

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 57 GAO-02-72 WIA Implementation Issues

Department of Labor: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and Addressing

Major Management Challenges (GAO-01-779, June 15, 2001).

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks, Department of Labor

(GAO-01-251, Jan. 2001).

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs

Indicate Need for Closer Examination of Structure (GAO-01-71, Oct. 13,

2000).

Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of

TANF Services (GAO/T-HEHS-00-145, June 29, 2000).

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to

Create a More Efficient, Customer-Driven System (GAO/T-HEHS-95-70,

Feb. 6, 1995).

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to

Reduce Costs, Streamline the Bureaucracy, and Improve Results (GAO/THEHS-95-53, Jan. 10, 1995).

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlap Among Programs

Raises Questions About Efficiency (GAO/HEHS-94-193, July 11, 1994).

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Can

Add Unnecessary Administrative Costs (GAO/HEHS-94-80, Jan. 28, 1994).

Related GAO Products

(130007)

The General Accounting Office, the 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 is through the

Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text files of

current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The

Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words

and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and

other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO E-mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to our home page and complete the easy-to-use

electronic order form found under “To Order GAO Products.”

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. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, D.C. 20013

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

TDD: (301) 413-0006

Fax: (202) 258-4066

GAO Building

Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)

Washington, D.C. 20013

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov, or

1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system).

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting 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

Visit GAO’s Document

Distribution Center

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs

Public Affairs