United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony before the Subcommittee on 

Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and 

Competitiveness, Committee on 

Education and Labor, House of 

Representatives

WORKFORCE 

INVESTMENT ACT 

Additional Actions Would 

Further Improve the 

Workforce System 

Statement of Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 1:30 p.m. EDT

Thursday, June 28, 2007

 

GAO-07-1051T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 28, 2007

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT

Additional Actions Would Further 

Highlights of GAO-07-1051T, a testimony Improve the Workforce System 

before the Subcommittee on Higher 

Education, Lifelong Learning, and

Competitiveness, Committee on Education 

and Labor, House of Representatives 

Since the Workforce Investment 

Act’s (WIA) enactment in 1998, 

GAO has issued numerous reports

that included recommendations 

regarding many aspects of WIA, 

including performance measures

and accountability, funding 

formulas and spending, one-stop 

centers, and training, as well as 

services provided to specific

populations, such as dislocated

workers, youth, and employers. 

Collectively, these studies 

employed an array of data

collection techniques, including

surveys to state and local 

workforce officials and private 

sector employers; site visits; 

interviews with local, state, and 

Labor officials; and analysis of

Labor data and documents. This 

testimony draws upon the results

of these reports, issued between 

2000 and 2007, as well as GAO’s 

ongoing work on one-stop

infrastructure, and discusses issues 

raised and recommendations made. 

Specifically, the testimony 

addresses (1) progress made by

federal, state, and local officials in

implementing key provisions of

WIA; and (2) challenges that

remain in implementing an

integrated employment and

training system.

GAO is making no new 

recommendations at this time.

Seven years after implementing the workforce investment system under 

WIA, the system’s infrastructure continues to evolve. Nationwide, the 

number of comprehensive one-stop centers has decreased somewhat, but 

not uniformly across states. States generally reported increased availability 

of services for some of the mandatory programs at comprehensive one-stop 

centers. However, despite WIA’s requirement that all mandatory partners 

provide services through the one-stop system, some states have maintained a

completely separate system for delivering services for Wagner-Peyserfunded Employment Services. Adults and dislocated workers receive a wide 

range of services through the one-stop system. Local areas used about 

40 percent of their WIA funds in 2003 to provide training services to an 

estimated 416,000 participants, but the vast majority of job seekers receive

services other than training. States and local areas have generally focused 

their youth services on in-school youth and have found it difficult to recruit 

and retain out-of-school youth. Most medium and large employers are aware 

of and use the system and are quite satisfied with its services, but they 

generally use one-stop centers to fill their needs for low-skilled workers. 

Despite the successes state and local officials have had since WIA’s 

implementation, some aspects of the law and other factors have hampered 

their efforts. Funding issues continue to stymie the system. WIA’s formulas 

that are used to allocate funds to states do not reflect current program 

design and have caused wide fluctuations in funding levels from year to year 

that do not reflect actual layoff activity. In addition, Labor’s focus on 

expenditures without including obligations overestimates the amount of 

funds available to provide services at the local level. Moreover, little is 

known about what the system is achieving because only a small minority of 

participants are captured in the performance measures, and Labor has not 

conducted an impact study to assess the effectiveness of the one-stop 

system, as required under WIA. Labor has taken some steps to improve 

guidance and communication, but does not involve key stakeholders in the 

development of some major initiatives and provides too little time for states 

and local areas to implement them. We are suggesting that Congress 

consider taking steps to improve the stability of the funding and enhance the 

data available on people who use the system. In addition, in our past work, 

we have recommended that Labor use obligations when estimating states’ 

available funds, that it comply with the requirements of WIA and conduct an 

impact evaluation, and that it consider alternative approaches in

implementing new initiatives that involve ongoing consultation with key 

stakeholders. Labor has taken little action on these recommendations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1051T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at 

(202) 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting me here today to present the findings from our 

work on the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). As you know, WIA 

represented a significant departure from earlier job training programs. 

Passed in 1998 and implemented by most states in July 2000, it was 

designed to unify a fragmented employment and training system and 

create a single, universal system—a one-stop system that could serve the 

needs of all job seekers and employers. WIA sought to streamline the 

delivery of federally funded employment and training services, enabling 

job seekers to make informed choices among training providers and 

course offerings, and enhancing the private sector role in the workforce 

system. WIA gave states and localities flexibility in deciding how to 

implement the one-stop system, allowing local one-stops to tailor their 

systems to local needs. Four separate federal agencies—the Departments 

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

Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—fund 16 categories of programs 

that are required to provide services through the one-stop system. In 

addition to programs that are required to take part in the new system, 

Labor encourages states and localities to include optional partners, such 

as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), in order to better 

meet the specific workforce development needs of their local areas. Labor 

takes a lead role in this system and is responsible for assessing the 

effectiveness of Labor-funded programs and for providing guidance and 

technical assistance to states and localities as programs deliver their 

services through the one-stop system. 

Since WIA was enacted, we have issued numerous reports that included 

recommendations regarding many aspects of WIA, including performance 

measures and accountability, funding formulas and spending, one-stop 

centers, and training, as well as services provided to specific populations, 

such as dislocated workers, youth, and employers. As the Congress 

considers reauthorizing WIA, you asked us to summarize our findings and 

recommendations and provide our assessment of the current status of the 

system envisioned under WIA. My testimony today will discuss 

(1) progress made by federal, state, and local officials in implementing key 

provisions of WIA and (2) challenges that remain in implementing an 

integrated employment and training system. To address these objectives, 

we drew upon reports we issued between 2000 and 2007, as well as our 

Page 1 GAO-07-1051T 
ongoing work for you on one-stop center infrastructure.1

 In our prior work 

on WIA, we have employed an array of methodologies, including surveys 

of state and local workforce officials and private sector employers; site 

visits to state and local areas; interviews with local, state, and Labor 

officials; and analysis of Labor’s data and documents. Our new work on

one-stop center infrastructure is based primarily on an electronic survey 

of state workforce officials in 50 states conducted between April and May 

2007. In addition to our survey, we conducted a literature review to 

identify findings from other studies—including those sponsored by 

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

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

In summary, the workforce system’s infrastructure and service strategies 

have evolved under WIA to meet the needs of employers and job seekers, 

but congressional action could further the system’s development. While 

the number of comprehensive one-stop centers has decreased somewhat 

over the past six years, states generally reported increased availability of

services for some of the mandatory programs at comprehensive one-stop 

centers. Adults and dislocated workers receive a wide range of services 

through the one-stop system, but states and local areas have generally 

focused their youth services on in-school youth, finding it difficult to 

recruit and retain out-of-school youth. Most medium and large employers 

are aware of and use the system and are quite satisfied with its services, 

but they generally use one-stop centers to fill their needs for low-skilled 

workers. Despite the progress states and local areas have made in 

developing the system, key aspects of the program could be improved. 

Funding issues continue to hamper the system, in part because WIA’s 

 1

In particular, see GAO, Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Labor Could

Improve Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program Impact, 

GAO-07-594 (Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2007); Workforce Investment Act: Employers 

Found One-Stop Centers Useful in Hiring Low-Skilled Workers, GAO-07-167 (Washington,

D.C.: Dec. 22, 2006); Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to

Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed, GAO-06-82, (Washington, D.C.:

Nov. 14, 2005); Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but

Labor Needs to Make Data Available, GAO-06-53, (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2005); 

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

about Training Outcomes, GAO-05-650, (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005); Workforce 

Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for Youth, Adults, and Dislocated

Workers, GAO-03-636, (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2003); Workforce Investment Act: States’

Spending Is on Track, but Better Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting, 

GAO-03-239, (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002); and Workforce Investment Act: 

Implementation Status and the Integration of TANF Services. GAO/T-HEHS-00-145. 

Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000. 

Page 2 GAO-07-1051T 
Dislocated Worker funding formula causes wide fluctuations in funding 

levels from year to year that do not reflect actual layoff activity. In 

addition, Labor’s focus on expenditures without including obligations 

overestimates the amount of funds available to provide services at the 

local level. Moreover, little is known about what the system is achieving

because only a small minority of participants are captured in the 

performance measures and Labor has not conducted an impact study to

assess the effectiveness of the one-stop system, as required under WIA. 

Labor has taken some steps to improve guidance and communication, but

has not involved key stakeholders in the development of some of its major 

initiatives and provided too little time for states and local areas to 

implement them. 

The Workforce Investment Act created a new, comprehensive workforce 

investment system designed to change the way employment and training 

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

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

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

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

program services. These new programs no longer focused exclusively on

training, but provided for three tiers, or levels, of service for adults and 

dislocated workers: core, intensive, and training. Core services include 

basic services such as job searches and labor market information. These 

activities may be self-service or require some staff assistance. Intensive 

services include such activities as comprehensive assessment and case

management, as well as classes in literacy, conflict resolution, work skills, 

and those leading to general equivalency diploma (GED)—activities that 

require greater staff involvement. Training services include such activities 

as occupational skills or on-the-job training. These tiers of WIA-funded 

services are provided sequentially. That is, in order to receive intensive 

services, job seekers must first demonstrate that core services alone will 

not lead to getting a job that will provide self-sufficiency. Similarly, to 

receive training services, a job seeker must show that core and intensive 

services will not lead to such a job. Unlike prior systems, WIA requires 

that individuals eligible for training under the Adult and Dislocated 

Worker Programs receive vouchers—called Individual Training 

Accounts—which they can use for the training provider and course 

offering of their choice, within certain limitations. 

Background 

In addition to establishing the three new programs, WIA requires that 

services for these programs, along with those of a number of other 

employment and training programs, be provided through a single service 

Page 3 GAO-07-1051T 
delivery system—the one-stop system. States were required to implement 

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

separate federal agencies must provide services through the system. 

(See table 1.) 

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

Federal agency Mandatory program 

WIA Adult 

WIA Dislocated Worker 

WIA Youth 

Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser) 

Trade adjustment assistance programs 

Veterans’ employment and training programs

Unemployment Insurance 

Job Corps 

Senior Community Service Employment Program 

Employment and training for migrant and seasonal 

farm workers 

Department of Labor 

Employment and training for Native Americans 

Vocational Rehabilitation Program 

Adult Education and Literacy

Department of Education 

Vocational Education (Perkins Act) 

Department of Health and 

Human Services 

Community Services Block Grant 

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 

HUD-administered employment and training

Source: GAO-03-589 and Labor.

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

Welfare-to-Work program no longer exists, reducing the total to 16 mandatory programs. 

Each local area must have at least one comprehensive one-stop center 

where core services for all mandatory programs are accessible. WIA 

allows flexibility in the way these mandatory partners provide services 

through the one-stop system, allowing colocation, electronic linkages, or 

referrals to off-site partner programs. While WIA requires these mandatory 

partners to participate, it does not provide additional funds to operate onestop systems and support one-stop partnerships. As a result, mandatory 

partners are expected to share the costs of developing and operating onestop centers. In addition to mandatory partners, one-stop centers have the

flexibility to include other partners in the one-stop system to better meet 

Page 4 GAO-07-1051T 
specific state and local workforce development needs. Services may also

be provided at affiliated sites, defined as designated locations that provide 

access to at least one employment and training program. 

About $3.3 billion was appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for the three WIA 

programs—Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth. The formulas for 

distributing these funds to the states were left largely unchanged from 

those used to distribute funds under the predecessor program, JTPA, and 

are based on such factors as unemployment rates and the relative number 

of low-income adults and youth in the population. In order to receive their

full funding allocations, states must report on the performance of their 

three WIA programs. WIA requires that performance measures gauge

program results in the areas of job placement, retention, earnings, skill 

attainment and customer satisfaction, largely through the use of 

Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records.2

 Labor’s guidance requires 

that job seekers be tracked for outcomes when they begin receiving core 

services that require significant staff assistance. States are held

accountable by Labor for their performance and may receive incentive 

funds or suffer financial sanctions based on whether they meet 

performance levels. WIA requires states to negotiate with Labor to 

establish expected performance levels for each measure. While WIA 

established performance measures for the three WIA-funded programs, it 

did not establish any comprehensive measures to assess the overall 

performance of the one-stop system. 

Seven years after the implementation of the workforce investment system 

under WIA, the system’s infrastructure continues to evolve. Nationwide, 

the number of comprehensive one-stop centers has decreased somewhat, 

but not uniformly across states. States generally reported increased 

availability of services for some of the mandatory programs at 

comprehensive one-stop centers. But despite WIA’s requirement that all 

mandatory partners provide services through the one-stop system, some 

states have maintained a completely separate system for delivering 

services for Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Services (ES). Adults and 

dislocated workers receive a wide range of services through the one-stop 

system, but states and local areas have generally focused their youth 

services on in-school youth, finding it difficult to recruit and retain out-ofSystem Infrastructure 

and Service Strategies 

Have Evolved To Meet 

the Needs of Job 

Seekers and 

Employers 

 2

In some cases, supplemental data sources may be used when UI data are not available. 

Supplemental data may not be used for the earnings measure. 

Page 5 GAO-07-1051T 
school youth. Most medium and large employers are aware of and use the 

system and are quite satisfied with its services, but they generally use onestop centers to fill their needs for low-skilled workers. 

WIA’s Service Delivery 

Infrastructure Continues 

to Evolve 

WIA’s service delivery infrastructure has continued to evolve since we last 

reviewed it in 2001. Over the 6-year period, nationwide, the number of onestop centers—both comprehensive and satellite—has declined, a fact that 

states most often attributed to a decrease in funding. The number of 

comprehensive centers declined from a high of 1,756 in 2001 to 1,637 in 

2007. However, this trend is not uniform across states. Ten states reported 

an increase in comprehensive centers over the last 4 years. For example, 

Montana reported a 600 percent increase in centers as part of a statewide

restructuring of its one-stop delivery system that involved converting 

former satellite and affiliated sites into comprehensive one-stop centers. 

States that reported an increase in the number of comprehensive one-stop 

centers often cited a rise in demand for services as the reason for the 

increase. 

Services for mandatory programs are increasingly available through the 

one-stop system in 2007, though not always on-site. States continue to 

have services for two key programs—WIA Adult and Dislocated 

Workers—available on-site at the majority of the one-stop centers. In 

addition, 30 states reported that TANF services were generally available

on-site at a typical comprehensive one-stop center, and 3 more states 

reported they were typically on-site at satellites. The on-site availability of

some other programs—such as, Job Corps, Migrant and Seasonal 

Farmworkers, Senior Community Service and Employment Program, and 

Adult Education and Literacy—declined slightly between 2001 and 2007.

However, the overall availability of these programs’ services increased, 

largely because of substantial increases in access through electronic 

linkages and referrals. 

Despite the increased availability of some programs at one-stop centers, 

some states have not fully integrated all of their Wagner-Peyser-funded 

Employment Service into the system. Six states reported in our 2007 

survey that they operate stand-alone Employment Service offices, all 

completely outside the one-stop system. Another four states reported 

having at least some stand-alone offices outside the system (see fig. 1). 

At the same time, states that operate stand-alone offices also report 

providing services on-site at the majority of their one-stops. Labor has 

expressed concern that stand-alone Employment Service offices cause 

confusion for individuals and employers and promote duplication of effort 

Page 6 GAO-07-1051T 
and inefficient use of resources. Given the concern over resources, we 

asked states to provide estimates of their state’s total Employment Service 

allotment that was used to support the infrastructure of the stand-alone 

offices. Only 6 states could provide them, and the overall average was 

about 5 percent. However, the state with the most stand-alone ES offices 

reported that it had not used any of its ES allotment to support the 

infrastructure of these offices. Instead, this state financed the

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

Despite their concerns, Labor officials say that they lack the authority to 

prohibit stand-alone ES offices. 

Figure 1: In 2007, 18 States Have Stand-alone ES Offices, Six States Operate Them Completely Outside the System 

Pa.

Ore.

Nev.

Idaho

Mont.

Wyo.

Utah

Ariz.

N.Mex.

Colo.

N.Dak.

S.Dak.

Nebr.

Tex.

Kans.

Okla.

Minn.

Iowa

Mo.

Ark.

La.

Ill.

Miss.

Ind.

Ky.

Tenn.

Ala.

Fla.

Ga.

S.C.

N.C.

Va.

Ohio

N.H.

Mass.

R.I. Mich.

Calif.

Wash.

Wis. N.Y.

Maine

Vt.

W.Va.

Alaska

Hawaii

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

Source: GAO survey of 50 states.

States with all stand-alone 

ES offices within the system

States with stand-alone 

ES offices both within 

and outside the system

States without 

stand-alone ES offices

States with all stand-alone 

ES offices outside the 

system

While most states used multiple program funds to finance the operation of 

their one-stops, WIA and ES continue to be the two programs most often 

cited as funding sources used to cover one-stop infrastructure—or 

nonpersonnel—costs. In program year 2005, the most recent year for 

which data are available, 23 states reported that WIA was the top funding 

Page 7 GAO-07-1051T 
source used to support infrastructure, while 19 states identified the 

Employment Service. Of the eight states remaining, three cited TANF as 

the top funding source, two cited Unemployment Insurance, one cited WIA 

state funds, and two states could not provide this information. States 

reported less reliance on other programs to fund the one-stop

infrastructure in 2005 than in the past (see table 2). For example, the 

number of states that reported using TANF funds at all to cover 

infrastructure costs declined from 36 to 27. 

Table 2: Programs Funding One-Stop Center Infrastructure Costs 

Program 

Number of states using

program to fund 

infrastructure, Fiscal 

Year 2000

Number of states using

program to fund 

infrastructure, Fiscal 

Year 2001 

Number of states using

program to fund 

infrastructure, Program 

Year 2005

Labor

WIA Title I/JTPA 50 50 50

ES (Wagner-Peyser) 49 50 50

Veterans’ Employment and Training program 43 43 41

NAFTA and Trade/Trade Adjustment 

Assistance 

39 41 30

Unemployment Insurance 39 39 34

Welfare-to-Work grants 39 38 N/A

One-stop implementation grants 37 N/A N/A

Job Corps 20 24 11

Education 

Vocational rehabilitation 37 37 24

Adult education and literacy 29 29 15

Vocational education 24 19 N/A

Other

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 33 36 27

Community colleges N/A N/A 11

State funds N/A 31 24

Source: Based on GAO surveys conducted in 2000, 2001, and 2007. 

N/A = not applicable. 

Page 8 GAO-07-1051T 
WIA provides the flexibility to states and local areas to develop 

approaches for serving job seekers and employers that best meet local 

needs. In our work we have found some broad trends in services, but there 

continues to be wide variation across the country in the mix of services 

and how they are provided. Local areas use a substantial portion of their 

WIA funds to provide training to adults and dislocated workers, but use 

even more to provide the services that go beyond training, including case

management, assessment, and supportive services. However, serving 

youth, particularly out-of-school youth, has proven challenging. WIA 

increased the focus on the employer as customer, and we found that most 

medium and large employers are aware of and use the one-stop. However, 

employers look to the one-stop system mostly to help fill their needs for

low-skilled workers, in part because they assume that most workers 

available through the system are low-skilled. 

States and Local Areas 

Have Sought to Tailor 

Services to Meet the Needs 

of Customers 

Services to adults and dislocated workers involve more than training. 

Despite early concerns about the extent of training, we found that 

substantial WIA funds were being used to fund training. Local boards used 

about 40 percent of the approximately $2.4 billion in WIA funds they had 

available in program year 2003 to provide training services to an estimated

416,000 WIA participants, primarily in occupational skills.3

 However, the 

vast majority of job seekers receive self-assisted core services, not 

training. Not everyone needs or wants additional training. And even when 

they do, they need help deciding what type of training would best match 

their skill level while at the same time meet local labor market needs—

help that includes information on job openings, comprehensive 

assessments, individual counseling, and supportive services, such as 

transportation and child care. Of the funds available in program year 2003,

60 percent was used to pay for these other program costs, as well as to 

cover the cost of administering the program.4

Providing services to youth has been challenging for local areas. Local 

areas often focus their WIA youth resources on serving in-school youth, 

often using a range of approaches to prevent academic failure and school 

dropouts. Out-of-school youth are viewed as difficult to serve, in part 

because they are difficult to locate in the community and they face

particularly difficult barriers to employment and education, including low 

 3

Our estimate may include some participants more than once, because some individuals 

may have received more than one type of training. 

4

For more information, see GAO-05-650. 

Page 9 GAO-07-1051T 
levels of academic attainment, limited work experience, and a scarcity of

jobs in the community. The 5-year Youth Opportunity Grants program, 

authorized under WIA was designed, in part, to enhance the local 

infrastructure of youth services, particularly in high-poverty areas. 

Grantees offered participants a range of youth services—education, 

occupational skills training, leadership development, and support services. 

They set up centers that varied widely. To reach the hard-to-serve target 

population, grantees used a variety of recruiting techniques, ranging from 

the conventional to the innovative. For example, some grantees conducted 

community walking campaigns using staff to saturate shopping malls and 

other areas where youth congregate. Conditions in the communities such 

as violence and lack of jobs presented a challenge to most grantees, but 

they took advantage of the local discretion built into the program to 

develop strategies to address them. Grantees and others reported that the

participants and their communities made progress toward the education 

and employment goals of the program. However, a formal assessment of 

the program’s impact, while under way, has not yet been released by 

Labor. Although Labor originally planned to continue to add grantees, 

funding for the program was eliminated in the budget for fiscal year 2004.5

Employers mostly use one-stop centers to fill their needs for low-skilled

workers. Most medium and large employers are aware of and use the 

system and are satisfied with its services (see fig 2). Regardless of size, 

just over 70 percent of employers responding to our 2006 survey reported

that they hired a small percentage of their employees—about 9 percent—

through one-stops. Two-thirds of those they hired were low-skilled 

workers, in part because they thought the labor available from the onestops was mostly low-skilled. Employers told us they would hire more job 

seekers from the one-stop labor pools if the job seekers had the skills for 

which they were looking. Most employers used the centers’ job posting 

service, fewer made use of the one-stops’ physical space or job applicant 

screening services. Still, when employers did take advantage of services, 

they generally reported that they were satisfied with the services and 

found them useful because they produced positive results and saved them 

time and money. When employers did not use a particular one-stop 

service, in most cases they said that they either were not aware that the

 5

For more information see GAO, Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned

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

December 9, 2005), and Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States 

Improve Quality of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services, 

GAO-04-308, (Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004).

Page 10 GAO-07-1051T 
one-stop provided the service, or said they obtained it elsewhere, or said

that they carried through on their own.6

Figure 2: Percentage of Business Establishments Aware of, Using, and Satisfied

with One-Stops 

Source: GAO 2004 survey of private sector business establishments in the United States.

Employers

aware of

one-stops

All employers

Small (2-49 employees) Medium (50-499 employees) Large (500 or more employees)

Employers

who used one-stops

0

20

40

60

80

100

21

53

71

Aware

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

48

63

79

Used

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

78 75 79

Satisfied

Percent

Despite the successes state and local officials have had since WIA’s 

implementation, some aspects of the law and other factors have hampered

their efforts. First, funding issues continue to stymie the system. For 

example, the formulas in WIA that are used to allocate funds to states do 

not reflect current program design and have caused wide fluctuations in 

funding levels from year to year. In addition, Labor’s focus on 

expenditures without including obligations overestimates the amount of 

funds available to provide services at the local level. Second, the 

performance measurement system is flawed and little is known about 

what WIA has achieved. Labor has taken some steps to improve guidance

and communication, but does not involve key stakeholders in the 

development of some major initiatives and provides too little time for 

states and local areas to implement them. 

Additional Action 

Could Help System 

Development 

 6

For more information, see GAO-07-167 and GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Employers 

Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help

Labor Better Address Employers’ Needs, GAO-05-259, (Washington, D.C.: February 18,

2005). 

Page 11 GAO-07-1051T 
As states and localities have implemented WIA, they have been hampered 

by funding issues, including statutory funding formulas that are flawed. As 

a result, states’ funding levels may not always be consistent with the actual 

demand for services. In previous work, we identified several issues 

associated with the current funding formulas.7

 First, formula factors used 

to allocate funds are not aligned with the target populations for these 

programs.8

 Second, allocations may not reflect current labor market 

conditions because there are time lags between when the data are 

collected and when the allocations become available to states. Third, the 

formula for the Dislocated Worker program is especially problematic, 

because it causes funding levels to suffer from excessive and unwarranted 

volatility unrelated to a state’s actual layoff activity. Several aspects of the 

Dislocated Worker formula contribute to funding volatility and to the 

seeming lack of consistency between dislocation and funding. The excess 

unemployment factor has a threshold effect—states may or may not 

qualify for the one-third of funds allocated under this factor in a given 

year, based on whether or not they meet the threshold condition of having 

at least 4.5 percent unemployment statewide. In a study we conducted in 

2003, we compared dislocation activity and funding levels for several 

states. In one example, funding decreased in one year while dislocation 

activity increased by over 40 percent (see fig. 3). This volatility could be

mitigated by provisions such as “hold harmless” and “stop gain” 

constraints that limit changes in funding to within a particular range of 

each state’s prior year allocation. The Adult formula includes such 

constraints, setting the hold harmless at 90 percent and the stop gain at 

130 percent.9

Funding Allocation and 

Spending Information Do 

Not Reflect Program 

Structure 

 7

See GAO-03-636 and GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative 

Formulas on State Allocations, GAO-03-1043, (Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2003). 

8

The formulas for distributing these funds to the states were left largely unchanged from 

those used to distribute funds under JTPA. 

9

For more information, see GAO-03-636. 

Page 12 GAO-07-1051T 
Figure 3: An Example of the Mismatch between Dislocated Worker Funding

Allocation and Dislocation Activity—Massachusetts

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics and Employment and Training Administration.

Percent change from prior year

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Program years

-30.0

-20.0

-10.0

0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Workers affected by mass layoffs

Dislocated worker allocation

In addition to issues related to funding allocation, the process used to 

determine states’ available funds considers only expenditures and does 

not take into account the role of obligations in the current program 

structure. Our analysis of Labor’s data from program year 2003 and beyond

indicates that states are spending their WIA funds within the authorized 

3-year period. Nationwide, states spent over 66 percent of their program 

year 2003 WIA funds in the first year—an increase from the 55 percent 

since our 2002 report. In fact, almost all program funds allocated in 

program year 2003 were spent by states within 2 years. By contrast, 

Labor’s estimate of expenditure rates suggests that states are not spending 

their funds as quickly because the estimate is based on all funds states 

currently have available—from older funds carried in from prior program 

years to those only recently distributed. Moreover, many of the remaining 

funds carried over may have already been obligated—or committed 

through contracts for goods and services for which a payment has not yet

Page 13 GAO-07-1051T 
been made. When we examined recent national data on the amount of WIA 

funds states are carrying in from previous program years, we found that, 

overall, the amount of carryover funds is decreasing—from $1.4 billion 

into program year 2003 to $1.1 billion into program year 2005. One 

explanation for the decline may be that obligations are being converted to

expenditures. 

In our 2002 report, we also noted that Labor’s data lacked consistent 

information on obligations because states were not all using the same 

definition for obligations in what they reported to Labor. Labor’s guidance 

was unclear and did not specify whether obligations made at the local

level—the point at which services are delivered—should be included. We

recommended that Labor clarify the guidance to standardize the reporting 

of obligations and use this guidance when estimating states’ available 

funds. Labor issued revised guidance in 2002, but continues to rely on 

expenditure data in establishing its estimates. In so doing, it overestimates 

the funds states have available to spend and ignores the role of obligations 

in the current workforce investment system. Labor’s Office of the 

Inspector General (OIG) recently concurred, noting that obligations 

provide a more useful measure for assessing states’ WIA funding status if 

obligations accurately reflect legally committed funds and are consistently

reported.10

Little Is Known about 

What the System Is 

Achieving 

We have little information at a national level about what the workforce 

investment system under WIA achieves. Outcome data do not provide a 

complete picture of WIA services. The data reflect only a small portion of 

those who receive WIA services and contain no information on services to

employers. Furthermore, WIA performance data are not comparable 

across states and localities, in part because of inconsistent policies in 

tracking participants for outcomes. In addition, the use of wage records to

calculate outcomes is no longer consistent across states. Labor and states 

have made progress in measuring WIA performance in a number of areas,

including Labor’s data validation initiative and the move to common 

measures. Labor’s proposed integrated data system holds promise in 

improving data reporting, but it is unclear whether it will be implemented 

as currently proposed. Furthermore, Labor has not yet conducted an 

impact evaluation, as required by WIA. 

 10For more information, see U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, SemiAnnual Report to Congress, Volume 57 (October 1, 2006-March 31, 2007), and GAO-03-239. 

Page 14 GAO-07-1051T 
WIA performance data do not include information on all customers 

receiving services. Currently Labor has only limited information on 

certain job seekers—those who use only self-services—and on employers. 

WIA excludes job seekers who receive core services that are self-service 

or informational in nature from being included in the performance 

information. Thus, only a small proportion of the job seeker population 

who receive services at one-stops are actually reflected in WIA outcome 

data, making it difficult to know what the overall program is achieving. 

Customers who use self-services are estimated to be the largest portion of 

those served under WIA. In a 2004 study, we reported that some estimates 

show only about 5.5 percent of the individuals who walked into a one-stop 

were actually registered for WIA and tracked for outcomes. Furthermore, 

Labor has limited information about employer involvement in the one-stop 

system. Although Labor measures employers’ satisfaction, this measure 

does not provide information on how employers use the system. Labor 

officials told us that they do not rely on this information for any purpose, 

and the information is too general for states and local areas to use. 

WIA performance data are not comparable across states and localities. 

Because not all job seekers are included in WIA’s outcome measures, 

states and local areas must decide when to begin tracking participants for 

outcomes—a decision that has led to outcome data that are not 

comparable across states and local areas. The guidance available to states

at the time WIA was first implemented was open to interpretation in some 

key areas. For example, the guidance told states to register and track for 

outcomes all adults and dislocated workers who receive core services that

require significant staff assistance, but states could decide what 

constituted significant staff assistance. As a result, states and local areas 

have differed on whom they track and for how long—sometimes beginning 

the process when participants receive core services, and at other times not 

until they receive more intensive services. We have recommended that 

Labor determine a standard point of registration and monitor states to 

ensure they comply. Labor has taken some actions, but registration 

remains an issue.11

Furthermore, data are not comparable because the availability of wage 

records to calculate outcomes is no longer consistent across states. UI 

wage records—the primary data source for tracking WIA performance—

provide a fairly consistent national view of WIA performance. At the same 

 11See GAO-06-82. 

Page 15 GAO-07-1051T 
time, UI wage records cannot be readily used to track job seekers who get 

jobs in other states unless states share data. The Wage Record Interchange 

System (WRIS) was developed to allow states to share UI wage records 

and account for job seekers who participate in one state’s employment 

programs but get jobs in another state. In recent years, all states but one 

participated in WRIS while it was operated by the nonprofit National 

Association of State Workforce Agencies. However, in July 2006, Labor 

assumed responsibility for administering WRIS, and many states have 

withdrawn, in part because of a perceived conflict of interest between 

Labor’s role in enforcing federal law and the states’ role in protecting the 

confidentiality of their data. As of March 2007, only 30 states were 

participating in the program, and it is unknown if and when the other 

states will enter the data-sharing agreement. As a result, performance 

information in almost half the states may not include employment 

outcomes for job seekers who found jobs outside the states in which they 

received services.12

Labor has taken steps to address issues related to the quality of WIA 

performance data, but further action is needed. Both Labor’s OIG and our 

early studies of WIA raised issues on the quality of the performance data,

and Labor has taken steps aimed at addressing these issues. In October 

2004, Labor began requiring states to implement new data validation 

procedures for WIA performance data. This process requires states to 

conduct two types of validation: (1) data element validation—reviewing 

samples of WIA participant files, and (2) report validation—assessing 

whether states’ software accurately calculated performance outcomes. 

While it is too soon to fully assess whether Labor’s efforts have improved 

data quality, officials in most states have reported that Labor’s new 

requirements have helped increase awareness of data accuracy and 

reliability at both the state and local levels.13

In addition, in 2005, in response to an Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) initiative, Labor began requiring states to implement a common set 

of performance measures for its employment and training programs, 

including WIA.14 These measures include an entered employment rate, an 

 12For more information, see GAO-07-594. 

13See GAO-06-82. 

14OMB established a set of common measures to be applied to most federally funded job 

training programs that share similar goals.

Page 16 GAO-07-1051T 
employment retention rate, and an average earnings measure. Moving to 

the common measures has increased the comparability of outcome 

information across programs and made it easier for states and local areas

to collect and report performance information across the full range of 

programs that provide services in the one-stop system. In addition, as part 

of the implementation of the common measures, states are for the first 

time required to collect and report a count of all WIA participants who use 

one-stop centers. This may help provide a more complete picture of the 

one-stop system.15

The shift to common measures could also affect services to some groups 

of job seekers. Historically, certain WIA performance measures—primarily 

the earnings measure—have driven localities to serve only those 

customers who will help meet performance levels. For example, program 

providers have reported that the earnings measure provides a disincentive 

to enroll older workers in the program because of employment 

characteristics that may negatively affect program performance. In several 

local areas we visited for our study of older worker services, officials said

they considered performance measures a barrier to enrolling older 

workers seeking part-time jobs because they would have lower earnings 

and therefore reduce measured program performance. Labor’s shift from 

earnings gain to average earnings under the common measures may help 

reduce the extent to which the measures are a disincentive to serve certain 

populations. It remains unclear, however, how the new measure will affect 

the delivery of services to some groups, such as older workers, who are 

more likely to work part-time and have lower overall wages. Further 

action may be needed to help reduce the incentive to serve only those who 

will help meet performance levels. One approach that could help would be 

to systematically adjust expected performance levels to account for 

different populations and local economic conditions when negotiating 

performance. We have made such a recommendation to Labor, but little 

action has been taken.16

The Workforce Investment Streamlined Performance Reporting System 

(WISPR). Since 2004, Labor has been planning to implement an integrated

data-reporting system that could greatly enhance the understanding of job 

 15See GAO-06-82. 

16For more information, see GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have 

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

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

Page 17 GAO-07-1051T 
seeker services and outcomes. WISPR represents a promising step forward 

in integrating and expanding program reporting, but it is unclear whether 

implementation will occur as proposed. If implemented, the system would 

integrate data reporting by using standardized reporting requirements 

across the Employment Service, WIA, veterans’ state grant, and Trade 

Adjustment Assistance programs, and ultimately replace their existing 

reporting systems with a single reporting structure. Its integrated design 

would, for the first time, allow Labor and states to track an individual’s 

progress through the one-stop system. In addition, the system would 

expand data collection and reporting in two key areas: the services 

provided to employers and estimates of the number of people who access 

the one-stop system but ultimately receive limited or no services from onestop staff. On the basis of our preliminary review, WISPR appears to 

address many of the issues we’ve raised regarding the system’s current 

performance data. However, concerns have been raised about challenges

in implementing the new system, and at present, the timeline for WISPR’s 

implementation remains unclear. Given the rapidly approaching July 1, 

2007, implementation date, it appears likely that implementation will be 

delayed.17

No information exists on what works and for whom. Although Labor has 

improved its outcome data on job seekers who participate in its programs, 

these data alone cannot measure whether outcomes are a direct result of 

program participation, rather than external factors. For example, local 

labor market conditions may affect an individual’s ability to find a job as 

much as or more than participation in an employment and training 

program. To measure the effects of a program, it is necessary to conduct 

an impact evaluation that would seek to assess whether the program itself 

led to participant outcomes. Since the full implementation of WIA in 

2000—in which the one-stop system became the required means to provide 

most employment and training services—Labor has not made evaluating 

the impact of those services a research priority. While WIA required such 

an evaluation by 2005, Labor has declined to fund one in prior budgets. In 

2004, we recommended that Labor comply with the requirements of WIA 

and conduct an impact evaluation of WIA services to better understand 

what services are most effective for improving outcomes.18 In response, 

Labor cited the need for program stability and proposed delaying an 

impact evaluation of WIA until after reauthorization. In its 2008 budget 

 17For more information, see GAO-07-594. 

18See GAO-04-657. 

Page 18 GAO-07-1051T 
proposal, Labor identified an assessment of WIA’s impact on employment, 

retention, and earnings outcomes for participants as an effort the agency

would begin. As of May 2007, according to Labor officials, the agency had 

not yet begun to design the study.19

Labor Should Consider 

Alternative Approaches to 

Implement New Initiatives 

Labor has implemented some initiatives, such as national performance and 

reporting summits, to better communicate with states on changes in 

processes and procedures. However, guidance on policy changes has often 

come too late for states to be able to implement them. For example, in 

implementing common measures, states had very little time to make the 

necessary changes before they had to begin data collection and reporting

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

common measures, states were notified only in late February 2005 that 

Labor planned to implement changes on July 1, 2005, and final guidance

was not issued until April 15, 2005. This gave states 3 months or less to 

interpret federal guidance, coordinate with partners, modify information 

technology systems, issue new guidance, and train local area staff. In our 

2005 report, we commented that rushed implementation could negatively

affect data quality and compromise the potential benefits of the proposed

changes.20

In addition to underestimating the cost, time, and effort required of states 

to make such changes, Labor has failed to solicit adequate stakeholder 

input when introducing some major new initiatives. For example, Labor’s 

efforts to implement an integrated reporting system have been hampered 

by a lack of stakeholder input. In 2004, Labor first proposed a single, 

streamlined reporting system, known as the ETA Management Information 

and Longitudinal Evaluation system (EMILE) that would have replaced 

reporting systems for several Labor programs. While many states 

supported streamlined reporting, 36 states indicated that implementing the 

EMILE system, as proposed, would be very burdensome. Labor developed 

the system with only limited consultation with key stakeholders, including 

state officials, and as a result underestimated the magnitude and type of 

changes EMILE would require and the resources states would need in

order to implement it. In response, Labor substantially modified this 

 19See GAO-07-594. 

20For more information, see GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider 

Alternative Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements, 

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

Page 19 GAO-07-1051T 
system’s design. The modified system, now called WISPR, was set to be 

implemented on July 1, 2007. As with EMILE, however, concerns have 

been raised about challenges in implementing the new system, particularly 

the early implementation date. Some comments to OMB expressed the 

view that Labor had again underestimated the time states would need to

revise policy, reprogram systems, and retrain staff. Given the rapidly 

approaching deadline and states’ readiness to implement this system, it 

seems that this important initiative will likely be delayed again. In 2005, we

recommended that Labor consider alternative approaches that involve 

ongoing consultation with key stakeholders as the agency seeks to 

implement its new initiatives. 

In the 7 years since most states fully implemented WIA, much progress has 

been made in developing and implementing a universal system. With 

notable exceptions, services for partner programs are becoming 

increasingly available through the one-stop system. States and local areas

have used the flexibility under WIA to tailor services for where they are 

and for whom they serve. As the Congress moves toward reauthorizing 

WIA, consideration should be given to maintaining that state and local 

flexibility, whereby innovation and system ownership can be fostered. 

However, some aspects of WIA could be improved through legislative

action. Our findings highlight two key areas: 

Concluding 

Observations 

• Improving the data on people who use the system: Requiring all job 

seekers who receive WIA funded services to be included in the 

performance management system would improve understanding of 

who gets served and eliminate the ambiguity about who should be 

tracked and for how long. 

• Improving funding stability: If Congress chooses not to make broader 

funding formula changes, reducing the volatility in the Dislocated 

Worker allocation by requiring the use of hold harmless and stop gain 

provisions in the formula would help stabilize funding and better foster 

sound financial practices. 

Furthermore, we have made a number of recommendations to Labor to 

improve aspects of the current program. While Labor has implemented 

many of them, several key concerns remain unaddressed. Labor has not 

taken steps to

• more accurately estimate states’ available fund by considering 

obligations as well as expenditures, 

Page 20 GAO-07-1051T 
• establish suitable performance levels for states to achieve by

developing and implementing a systematic approach for adjusting 

expected performance to account for different populations and local 

economic conditions, 

• maximize the likelihood that new initiatives will be adopted in an 

achievable time frame by using a collaborative approach that engages 

all key stakeholders, and

• improve policymakers’ understanding of what employment and training 

programs achieve by conducting important program evaluations, 

including an impact study on WIA, and releasing those findings in a 

timely way. 

In absence of actions by Labor on these issues, the Congress may wish to 

address them legislatively. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to

respond to any questions you or other members of the committee may 

have at this time. 

For information regarding this testimony, please contact Sigurd R. Nilsen, 

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, at (202) 

512-7215. Individuals who made key contributions to this testimony 

include Dianne Blank, Rebecca Woiwode, and Thomas McCabe. 

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 21 GAO-07-1051T 
Page 22 GAO-07-1051T 

Related GAO Products 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve 

Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program 

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

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

Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help 

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

22, 2006. 

National Emergency Grants: Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award 

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

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

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Most Workers in Five Layoffs Received 

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

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

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

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

December 9, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to 

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

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

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

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

D.C.: June 29, 2005. 

Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment 

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

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative 

Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting 

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

Workforce Investment Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied

with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address 

Employers’ Needs. GAO-05-259. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate

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

Not Be Sufficient. GAO-05-54. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2004. 
Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed 

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

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

National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve 

Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant 

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

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve 

Quality of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. 

GAO-04-308. Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004.

Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Worker Training and 

Employment through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with 

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

2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on 

State Allocations. GAO-03-1043. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to 

Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization. 

GAO-03-884T. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to 

Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and 

Information Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 

18, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for 

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

April 25, 2003. 

Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business 

Needs, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for 

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

Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and 

Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to 

Other Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003. 

Page 23 GAO-07-1051T 
Workforce Investment Act: States’ Spending Is on Track, but Better 

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

D.C.: November 22, 2002.

Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate 

Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective 

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

Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service 

Strategies, but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program

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

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding 

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

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

Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance 

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

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

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns 

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

testimony GAO-02-94T. 

Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of 

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

Page 24 GAO-07-1051T 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

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

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER