Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Employment, 

Safety and Training, Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor and Pensions, 

United States Senate

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Wednesday, June 18, 2003 WORKFORCE 

INVESTMENT ACT 

Exemplary One-Stops 

Devised Strategies to 

Strengthen Services, but 

Challenges Remain for 

Reauthorization 

Statement of Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

GAO-03-884T 
The workforce development system envisioned under WIA represents a 

fundamental shift from prior systems, and barely 3 years have passed since it 

was fully implemented. States and localities have found ways to use the 

flexibility in WIA to develop creative new approaches to providing services 

through their one-stop systems. In particular, a group of 14 one-stops, 

identified as exemplary by government officials and workforce development 

experts, developed promising strategies in several key areas. To streamline 

services for job seekers, they ensured that job seekers could readily access 

needed services, made sure that staff were knowledgeable about all of the 

one-stop services available, or consolidated case management and intake 

procedures. To engage and serve employers, the centers dedicated 

specialized staff to work with employers or industries, tailored services to 

meet specific employers’ needs, or worked with employers through 

intermediaries. To build a solid one-stop infrastructure, the centers found 

innovative ways to develop and strengthen program partnerships and to 

raise additional funds beyond those provided under WIA. 

GAO’s work on WIA implementation over the past 3 years has identified a 

number of issues that should be considered during WIA reauthorization. 

First, the performance measurement system is flawed--the need to meet 

certain performance measures may be causing one-stops to deny services to 

some clients who may most need them; there is no measure that assesses 

overall one-stop performance; and the outcome data are outdated by the 

time they are available and are not useful in day-to-day program 

management. Second, funding issues continue to plague officials. The 

funding formula used to allocate funds to states and local areas does not 

reflect current program design and often causes unwarranted fluctuations in 

funding levels from year to year. In addition, WIA provided no separate 

funding source to support one-stop infrastructure, and developing equitable 

cost sharing agreements has not always been successful. Third, many 

training providers consider the current process for certifying their eligibility 

to be overly burdensome, resulting in reduced training options for job 

seekers as providers have declined to serve WIA-funded clients. Finally, 

state officials have told GAO that they need more help from the U.S. 

Department of Labor in the form of clearer guidance and greater 

opportunities to share promising practices in managing and providing 

services through their one-stop centers. 

This testimony highlights findings 

from today’s report on strategies 

that exemplary one-stop centers 

have implemented to strengthen 

and integrate services for 

customers and to build a solid onestop infrastructure. It also shares 

findings and recommendations 

from GAO’s past work on 

challenges that states and localities 

have experienced as they 

implement the Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA), which may 

be helpful as WIA is reauthorized. 

Because little is known about 

whether promising one-stop 

service delivery approaches are 

meeting customers’ needs, GAO 

has recommended that the 

Secretary of Labor collaborate with 

other federal agencies to develop a 

research agenda that examines the 

impacts of these promising 

approaches on one-stop customer 

satisfaction and outcomes. In 

addition, GAO has recommended 

that the Secretary take steps to 

alleviate problems pertaining to the 

WIA performance measurement 

system, WIA allocation formulas 

and one-stop infrastructure 

funding, and the process for 

certifying eligible training 

providers. Finally, GAO has 

suggested that Labor provide 

clearer guidance and greater 

opportunities for one-stop 

administrators to share promising 

practices in one-stop service 

delivery and management. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-884T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen, 

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

Highlights of GAO-03-884T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Employment, 

Safety and Training, Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor and Pensions, United 

States Senate 

June 18, 2003 

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT

Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies 

to Strengthen Services, but Challenges 

Remain for Reauthorization 
Page 1 GAO-03-884T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

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

recent 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, Health and Human Services (HHS), Education, and Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD)—fund about 17 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 area. Labor takes 

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

effectiveness of Labor-funded programs and for providing guidance to 

states and localities as programs deliver their services through the onestop system. 

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

state and local efforts related to WIA, including challenges in 

implementing the new training provider system, new partnership 

requirements, and the new performance measurement system, as well as 

issues related to funding. While much of our past work has focused on 

challenges pertaining to WIA implementation, today we are releasing a 

report that examines how states and localities have used the flexibility in 

WIA to develop promising approaches to streamline jobseeker services, 

engage employers, and strengthen one-stop infrastructure.1

 My testimony 

today will discuss (1) promising strategies to improve one-stop services 

 1

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). 
Page 2 GAO-03-884T 

and operations being implemented by a group of 14 one-stop centers that 

were identified as exemplary and (2) challenges identified in our previous 

work that states and localities have faced in implementing WIA. 

In summary, in the barely 3 years since the full implementation of WIA, 

states and localities have found ways to use the flexibility in WIA to 

develop creative new ways to improve their one-stop systems. In 

particular, a group of 14 one-stops, identified as exemplary by government 

officials and workforce development experts, developed promising 

strategies in the key areas of streamlining services for job seekers, 

engaging and serving employers, and building a solid one-stop 

infrastructure. However, despite the successes state and local officials are 

having as they implement WIA and continue to build relationships among 

the myriad partners in this new, and dramatically different system, 

challenges remain. First, the performance measurement system is flawed, 

causing some one-stops to deny services to some clients who may be most 

in need of them. Moreover, outcome data are outdated and are, therefore, 

not useful for day-to-day program management. Second, funding issues 

also continue to plague the system. The funding formulas used to allocate 

funds to states and local areas do not reflect current program design and 

has caused wide and unwarranted fluctuations in funding levels from year 

to year. In addition, WIA provided no separate funding source to support 

one-stop infrastructure, and developing equitable cost sharing agreements 

has not always been successful. Third, many training providers consider 

the current provisions for certifying their eligibility to be overly 

burdensome, which may reduce training options for job seekers as 

providers have withdrawn from the WIA system. Finally, state officials 

have told us that they need more help from Labor in the form of clearer 

guidance and instructions and greater opportunities to share promising 

practices in managing and providing services through their one-stop 

centers. 

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, 

including job search assistance, assessment, and training for eligible 

Background 
Page 3 GAO-03-884T 

individuals.2 In addition to establishing three new programs, WIA requires 

that a number of other employment-related services be provided through a 

one-stop system, designed to make employment and training services 

easier for job seeker customers to access. WIA also requires that the onestop system engage the employer customer by helping employers identify 

and recruit skilled workers. While WIA gives states and localities flexibility 

in implementing these requirements, the law emphasizes that the one-stop 

system should be a customer-focused and comprehensive system. Such a 

system gives job seekers the job search and support services they need 

and provides services that better meet employers’ needs. (See fig. 1.) 

Figure 1: One-Stop Customers Include Job Seekers and Employers 

The major hallmark of WIA is the consolidation of services through the 

one-stop center system. Seventeen categories of programs—termed 

“mandatory partners”—with appropriations totaling over $15 billion from 

four separate federal agencies, are required to provide services through 

the system. (See table 1.) 

 2

While WIA was enacted in 1998, states were not required to implement major provisions of 

WIA until July 1, 2000, when JTPA’s repeal was effective. 
Page 4 GAO-03-884T 

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

Year 2003 Program Appropriations 

Federal agency Mandatory program 

Fiscal Year 2003 

appropriations 

Department of Labor WIA Adult $898,778,000 

 WIA Dislocated Worker 1,461,145,495 

 WIA Youth 994,458,728 

 Employment Service (WagnerPeyser) 756,783,723 

 Trade adjustment assistance 

programs 972,000,000 

 Veterans’ employment and 

training programs 167,199,097 

 Unemployment Insurance 2,634,253,000 

 Job Corps 1,522,240,700 

 Welfare-to-Work grant-funded 

programs 0 

 Senior Community Service 

Employment Program 442,306,200 

 Employment and training for 

migrant and seasonal farm 

workers 77,330,066 

 Employment and training for 

Native Americans 55,636,000 

Department of 

Education 

Vocational Rehabilitation 

Program 2,506,948,000 

 Adult Education and Literacy 571,262,500 

 Vocational Education (Perkins 

Act) 1,513,170,925 

Department of Health 

and Human Services 

(HHS) 

Community Services Block Grant 

645,762,085 

Department of 

Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) 

HUD-administered employment 

and training 

65,000,000 

Total $15,284,274,519 

Source: U.S. General Accounting Office, Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and Performance Measures for Major 

Programs, GAO-03-589 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 18, 2003) and Labor. 

WIA allows flexibility in the way these mandatory partners provide 

services through the one-stop system, allowing co-location in one building, 

electronic linkages, or referrals to off-site partner programs. While WIA 

requires these mandatory partners to participate, WIA did not provide 

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

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

costs of developing and operating one-stop centers. 
Page 5 GAO-03-884T 

Beyond the mandatory partners, one-stop centers have the flexibility to 

include other partners in the one-stop system. Labor suggests that these 

additional, or optional partners, may help one-stop systems better meet 

specific state and local workforce development needs. These optional 

partners may include TANF3

 or local private organizations. States have the 

option of mandating particular optional partners to participate in their 

one-stop systems. For example, in 2001, 28 states had formal agreements 

between TANF and WIA to involve TANF in the one-stop system.4 In 

addition, localities may adopt other partners to meet the specific needs of 

the community. 

About $3.3 billion was appropriated in fiscal year 2003 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 JTPA and are based on such factors 

as unemployment rates, including the number of long-term unemployed, 

and the relative number of low-income adults and youth in the population. 

In order to receive their full funding allocation, states must demonstrate 

the effectiveness of their three WIA programs by tracking and reporting a 

variety of performance measures. These performance measures gauge 

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

change, skill attainment and customer satisfaction. WIA requires states to 

use Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records to gather this information 

about WIA participants.5

 States are held accountable by Labor for their 

performance in these areas and may suffer financial sanctions if they fail 

to meet their expected performance standards. WIA did not establish any 

comprehensive measures to assess the overall performance of the onestop system. 

WIA also requires that training providers wishing to serve individuals’ 

training needs through WIA’s Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs meet 

key data reporting requirements, including completion rates, job 

placement rates, and wages at placement for all students they serve, 

including those not funded under WIA. WIA requires the collection of 

these outcome data so that job seekers receiving training can use them to 

 3

TANF provides low-income families with income support and employment-related 

assistance. 

4

For more information on TANF participation in one-stop centers, see GAO-02-739T. 

5

In some cases, supplemental data sources may be used when UI data are not available. 
Page 6 GAO-03-884T 

make more informed choices about training providers. 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. WIA also 

requires these data so that states and localities can assess training 

providers’ performance. For example, a state might only allow training 

providers’ courses with an 80-percent completion rate to remain on the 

training provider list. If a course fails to meet that level, it would no longer 

be allowed to serve WIA-funded individuals. 

Finally, WIA called for the development of workforce investment boards 

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

level, WIA requires, 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 requires 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 

oversee one-stop operations. WIA requires that private-sector 

representatives chair the boards and make up the majority of board 

members. This is to help ensure that the private sector is able to provide 

information on the available employment opportunities and expanding 

career fields and help develop ways to close the gap between job seekers 

and labor market needs. 
Page 7 GAO-03-884T 

States and localities have found ways to use the flexibility in WIA to 

develop creative new ways to serve job seekers and employers. In 

particular, a group of 14 one-stops, identified as exemplary by government 

officials and workforce development experts for our study of promising 

one-stop approaches, has developed strategies for streamlining services 

for job seekers, engaging and serving employers, and building a solid onestop infrastructure.6

 All of the 14 centers in the study streamlined services 

for jobseekers by ensuring that they can readily access needed services, by 

educating program staff about all of the one-stop services available to job 

seekers, or by consolidating case management and intake procedures. In 

addition, to engage employers and provide them needed services, all of the 

centers used strategies that included dedicating specialized staff to work 

with employers or industries, tailoring services to meet specific employers’ 

needs, or working with employers through intermediaries, such as 

Chambers of Commerce or economic development entities. Finally, to 

provide the infrastructure needed to support better services for job 

seekers and employers, many of the one-stops we visited found innovative 

ways to develop and strengthen program partnerships and to raise 

additional funds beyond those provided under WIA. (Figure 2 shows the 

locations of the 14 one-stop centers we visited.) 

 6

The centers in our study represented a geographic and demographic mix, ranged from 

rural to urban, and served from 500 to 42,500 customers each month. Some of the sites, 

such as Kansas City, Missouri, represented a mix of urban, suburban, and rural customers. 

They also represented a mix of one-stop operators—those responsible for administering 

the one-stop centers—including nonprofit organizations, a consortium of one-stop 

partners, and local government entities. 

States and Localities 

Have Embraced WIA’s 

Flexibility to Develop 

Promising 

Approaches to 

Serving Job Seekers 

and Employers 
Page 8 GAO-03-884T 

Figure 2: GAO Site Visits to One-Stop Centers 

Source: GAO site visits.

CONNECT!

Sunnyvale, CA

Job Link

Santa Rosa, CA

Florida

Maine

Central Texas 

Workforce

Killeen, TX

Full 

Employment 

Council

Kansas City, MO

WorkForce 

Essentials, Inc. 

Clarksville, TN

South County 

Employment Center

Salt Lake City, UT

Arapahoe/

Douglas Works! 

Aurora, CO

Anoka County 

Workforce Center

Blaine, MN

Kenosha County 

Job Center

Kenosha, WI

The Job Center

Dayton, OH

Erie Team 

PA CareerLink

Erie, PA

The Work Place

Boston, MA

Cumberland 

County One-Stop 

Vineland, NJ

Pike County 

JobSight Center

Pikeville, KY
Page 9 GAO-03-884T 

All of the one-stop centers in our recent study focused their efforts on 

streamlining services for job seekers by ensuring that job seekers could 

readily access needed services, educating program staff about all of the 

one-stop services available to job seekers, or consolidating case 

management and intake procedures. To ensure that job seekers could 

readily access needed services, one-stops we visited allocated staff to help 

them navigate the one-stop system, provided support to customers with 

transportation barriers, and expanded services for one-stop customers. 

For example, managers in Erie, Pennsylvania, positioned a staff person at 

the entrance to the one-stop to help job seekers entering the center find 

needed services and to assist exiting job seekers if they did not receive the 

services they sought. In addition to improving access to one-stop center 

services on-site, some of the one-stops we visited found ways to serve job 

seekers who may have been unable to come into the one-stop center due 

to transportation barriers or other issues. For example, in Boston, 

Massachusetts, the one-stop placed staff in off-site locations, including 

family courts, correctional facilities, and welfare offices, to give job 

seekers ready access to employment and program information. Finally, 

one-stops also improved job seeker access to services by expanding 

partnerships to include optional service providers—those beyond the 

program partners mandated by WIA. These optional partners ranged from 

federally funded programs, such as TANF, to community-based 

organizations providing services tailored to meet the needs of local job 

seekers. The one-stop in Dayton, Ohio, was particularly proactive in 

forming optional partnerships to meet job seekers’ service needs. At the 

time of our visit, the Dayton one-stop had over 30 optional partners onsite. 

To educate program staff about one-stop services, centers used crosstraining sessions in order to inform staff about the range of services 

available at the one-stop. Cross-training activities ranged from conducting 

monthly educational workshops to a shadow program to help staff 

become familiar with other programs’ rules and operations. Officials in 

Salt Lake City, Utah, reported that cross–training improved staff 

understanding of programs outside their area of expertise and enhanced 

their ability to make referrals. The Pikeville, Kentucky, one-stop supported 

cross-training workshops in which one-stop staff from different partner 

programs educated each other about the range of services they could 

provide. After learning about the other programs, Pikeville staff 

collaboratively designed a service delivery flow chart that effectively 

routed job seekers to the appropriate service providers, providing a clear 

entry point and a clear path from one program to another. In addition, the 

Vocational Rehabilitation staff at the Pikeville one-stop told us that crossSelected One-Stops Used 

Strategies to Streamline 

Services for Job Seekers 
Page 10 GAO-03-884T 

training other program staff about the needs of special populations 

enabled them to more accurately identify hidden disabilities and to better 

refer disabled customers to the appropriate services. 

Centers also sought to reduce the duplication of effort across programs 

and the burden on job seekers navigating multiple programs by 

consolidating case management and intake procedures across programs 

through the use of shared service plans for customers and shared 

computer networks. Ten of the 14 one-stops we visited consolidated their 

intake processes or case management systems. This consolidation took 

many forms, including having case workers from different programs work 

as a team developing service plans for customers to having a shared 

computer network across programs. For example, in Blaine, Minnesota, 

caseworkers from the various one-stop programs met regularly to 

collaborate in developing and implementing joint service plans for 

customers who were co-enrolled in multiple programs. To efficiently 

coordinate multiple services for one-stop customers in Erie, Pennsylvania, 

one-stop staff used a networked computer system with a shared case 

management program, so that all relevant one-stop program staff could 

share access to a customer’s service plan and case file. In Kansas City, 

Missouri, the Youth Opportunity Program and the WIA Youth Program 

staff shared intake and used a combined enrollment form to alleviate the 

burden of multiple intake and assessment forms when registering 

participants. 

All of the one-stops we visited engaged and served employers by 

dedicating specialized staff to establish relationships with employers or 

industries, by working with employers through intermediaries, or by 

providing specially tailored services to meet employers’ specific workforce 

needs. One-stop officials told us that engaging employers was critical to 

successfully connecting job seekers with available jobs. In order to 

encourage employers’ participation in the one-stop system, specialized 

staff outreached to individual employers and served as employers’ primary 

point of contact for accessing one-stop services. For example, the one-stop 

in Killeen, Texas, dedicated specialized staff to serve not only as the 

central point of contact for receiving calls and requests from employers 

but also to identify job openings available through employers in the 

community. In addition to working with individual employers, staff at 

some of the one-stops we visited also worked with industry clusters, or 

groups of related employers, to more efficiently meet local labor 

demands—particularly for industries with labor shortages. For instance, 

the one-stop in Aurora, Colorado, dedicated staff to work with specific 

Selected One-Stops 

Developed Strategies to 

Engage and Provide 

Services to Employers 
Page 11 GAO-03-884T 

industries, particularly the healthcare industry. In response to a shortage 

of 1,600 nurses in the Denver metro area, the Aurora one-stop assisted in 

the creation of a healthcare recruitment center designed to provide job 

seekers with job placement assistance and healthcare-related training. 

In addition to dedicating specialized staff, all of the one-stops we visited 

worked with intermediaries to engage and serve employers. 

Intermediaries, such as a local Chamber of Commerce or an economic 

development entity, served as liaisons between employers and the onestop system, helping one-stops to assess the workforce needs of 

employers while connecting employers with one-stop services. For 

example, the one-stop staff in Clarksville, Tennessee, worked with 

Chamber of Commerce members to help banks in the community that 

were having difficulty finding entry-level employees with the necessary 

math skills. To help connect job seekers with available job openings at 

local banks, the one-stop developed a training opportunity for job seekers 

that was funded by Chamber members and was targeted to the specific 

skills needed for employment in the banking community. Specialized staff 

at many of the one-stops we visited also worked with local economic 

development entities to recruit new businesses to the area. For example, 

the staff at the Erie, Pennsylvania, one-stop worked with a range of local 

economic development organizations to establish an employer outreach 

program that developed incentive packages to attract new businesses to 

the community. 

Finally, all of the one-stops we visited tailored their services to meet 

employers’ specific workforce needs by offering an array of job placement 

and training assistance designed for each employer. These services 

included specialized recruiting, pre-screening, and customized training 

programs. For example, when one of the nation’s largest cabinet 

manufacturers was considering opening a new facility in the eastern 

Kentucky area, the one-stop in Pikeville, Kentucky, offered a tailored set 

of services to attract the employer to the area. The services included 

assisting the company with pre-screening and interviewing applicants and 

establishing an on-the-job training package that could use WIA funding to 

offset up to 50 percent of each new hire’s wages during the 90-day training 

period. The Pikeville one-stop had responsibility for administering the 

application and assessment process for job applicants, including holding a 

3-day job fair that resulted in the company hiring 105 people through the 

one-stop and a commitment to hire 350 more in the upcoming year. 

According to a company representative, the incentive package offered by 

the one-stop was the primary reason the company chose to build a new 

facility in eastern Kentucky instead of another location. 
Page 12 GAO-03-884T 

To build the solid infrastructure needed to support better services for job 

seekers and employers, many of the one-stops we visited developed and 

strengthened program partnerships and raised funds beyond those 

provided under WIA. Operators at 9 of the 14 one-stops we visited fostered 

the development of strong program partnerships by encouraging 

communication and collaboration among partners through functional 

teams and joint projects. Collaboration through teams and joint projects 

allowed partners to better integrate their respective programs and 

services, as well as pursue common one-stop goals and share in one-stop 

decision-making. For example, partners at the Erie, Pennsylvania, onestop center were organized into four functional teams—a career resource 

center team, a job seeker services team, an employer services team, and 

an operations team—which together operated the one-stop center. As a 

result of the functional team meetings, partners reported that they worked 

together to solve problems and develop innovative strategies to improve 

services in their respective functional area. 

One-stop managers at several of the sites in our study told us that the colocation of partner programs in one building facilitated the development of 

strong partnerships. For this reason, one-stop managers at several of the 

centers reported that they fostered co-location by offering attractive 

physical space and flexible rental agreements. For example, in Pikeville, 

Kentucky, the local community college donated free space to the one-stop 

on its conveniently located campus, making it easier to convince partners 

to relocate there. Partners were also eager to relocate to the Pikeville onestop because they recognized the benefits of co-location for their 

customers. For instance, staff from the Vocational Rehabilitation Program 

said that co-location at the one-stop increased their customers’ access to 

employers and employment-related services. Several one-stops that did 

not co-locate found ways to create strong linkages with off-site partners. 

For example, in addition to regular meetings between on-site and off-site 

staff, the one-stop in Aurora, Colorado, had a staff person designated to 

act as a liaison and facilitate communication between on-site and off-site 

partners. Nationwide, co-location of partner services has been increasing 

since WIA was enacted. For example, in 2000, 21 states reported that 

Education’s Vocational Rehabilitation Program was co-located at the 

majority of their one-stops; this number increased to 35 states by 2001. 

Similarly, TANF work services were co-located in at least some one-stops 

in 32 states in 2000, increasing to 39 states by 2001. 

Managers at all but 2 of the 14 one-stops we visited said that they were 

finding ways to creatively increase one-stop funds through fee-based 

services, grants, or contributions from partner programs and state or local 

One-Stop Centers Built a 

Solid Infrastructure by 

Strengthening Program 

Partnerships and Raising 

Additional Funds 
Page 13 GAO-03-884T 

governments. Managers said these additional funds allowed them to cover 

operational costs and expand services despite limited WIA funding to 

support one-stop infrastructure and restrictions on the use of program 

funds. For example, one-stop operators in Clarksville, Tennessee, reported 

that they raised $750,000 in fiscal year 2002 through a combination of feebased business consulting, drug testing, and drivers’ education services. 

Using this money, the center was able to purchase a new voicemail and 

computer network system, which facilitated communication among staff 

and streamlined center operations.7

 Centers have also been proactive 

about applying for grants from public and private sources. For example, 

the one-stop center in Kansas City, Missouri, had a full-time staff person 

dedicated to researching and applying for grants. The one-stop generated 

two-thirds of its entire program year 2002 operating budget of $21 million 

through competitive grants available from the federal government as well 

as from private foundations. This money allowed the center to expand its 

services, such as through an internship program in high-tech industries for 

at-risk youth. One-stop centers also raised additional funds by soliciting 

contributions from local or state government and from partner agencies. 

For instance, the Dayton, Ohio, one-stop received $1 million annually from 

the county to pay for shared one-stop staff salaries and to provide services 

to job seekers who do not qualify for services under any other funding 

stream. Dayton one-stop partners also contributed financial and in-kind 

resources to the center on an as-needed basis. 

Despite the successes state and local officials are having as they 

implement WIA, some key aspects of the law, as well as Labor’s lack of 

clear guidance in some areas, have stymied their efforts. First, the 

performance measurement system is flawed—the need to meet certain 

performance measures may be causing one-stops to deny services to some 

clients who may be most in need of them; there is no measure that 

assesses overall one-stop performance; and the data used to measure 

outcomes are outdated by the time they are available and are, therefore, 

not useful in day-to-day program management. Second, funding issues 

continue to plague the system. The funding formulas used to allocate 

funds to states and local areas do not reflect current program design and 

has caused wide fluctuations in funding levels from year to year. In 

 7

While several centers had enthusiastically adopted fee-based services as a method of 

raising funds, it is important to note that managers of at least one center said they chose 

not to charge for services because they believed this might deter some employers or job 

seekers from accessing the services they need. 

Despite Successes, 

Some Aspects of WIA 

Have Stymied 

Officials’ Efforts to 

Implement WIA as 

Intended 
Page 14 GAO-03-884T 

addition, WIA provided no separate funding source to support one-stop 

infrastructure and developing equitable cost sharing agreements has not 

always been successful, largely because of the limitations in the way funds 

for some of the mandatory programs can be spent. Third, the current 

provision for certifying training providers as eligible is considered overly 

burdensome by many providers and may reduce training options for job 

seekers as providers have withdrawn from the WIA system. Finally, state 

officials have told us that they need more help from Labor in the form of 

clearer guidance and instructions and greater opportunities to share 

promising practices in managing and providing services through their onestop centers. 

The performance measurement system developed under WIA may be 

causing some clients to be denied services and does not allow for an 

accurate understanding of WIA’s effectiveness. First, the need to meet 

performance levels may be the driving factor in deciding who receives 

WIA-funded services at the local level. Officials in all five states we visited 

for one study told us that local areas are not registering many WIA 

participants, largely because local staff are reluctant to provide WIAfunded services to job seekers who may be less likely to find employment 

or experience earnings increases when they are placed in a job.8

 For 

example, one state official described how local areas were carefully 

screening potential participants and holding meetings to decide whether to 

register them. As a result, individuals who are eligible for and may benefit 

from WIA-funded services may not be receiving services that are tracked 

under WIA. We found similar results in our studies of older workers and 

incumbent workers.9

Performance levels for the measures that track earnings change for adults 

and earnings replacement for dislocated workers may be especially 

problematic. Several state officials reported that local staff were reluctant 

to register already employed adults or dislocated workers. State and local 

 8

See, Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to 

Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness, GAO-02-275 (Washington, D.C.: 

Feb. 1, 2002). 

9

See, for example, 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.: Feb. 14, 2003); Older Workers: Employment Assistance 

Focuses on Subsidized Job and Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could 

Improve Access to Other Services, GAO-03-350 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2003). 

WIA’s Performance 

Measurement System May 

Be Causing Some Clients 

to Be Denied Services and 

Does Not Provide an 

Accurate Picture of WIA’s 

Effectiveness 
Page 15 GAO-03-884T 

officials explained that it would be hard to increase the earnings of adults 

who are already employed or replace the wages of dislocated workers, 

who are often laid off from high-paying, low-skilled jobs or from jobs that 

required skills that are now obsolete. In addition, for dislocated workers, 

employers may provide severance pay or workers might work overtime 

prior to a plant closure, increasing these workers’ earnings before they are 

dislocated. Many dislocated workers who come to the one-stop center, 

therefore, have earned high wages just prior to being dislocated, making it 

hard to replace —let alone increase —their earnings. If high wages are 

earned before dislocation and lower wages are earned after job placement 

through WIA, the wage change will be negative, depressing the wage 

replacement level. As a result, a local area may not meet its performance 

level for this measure, discouraging service to those who may need it. 

Second, outcomes are measured largely using unemployment insurance 

(UI) wage data, but these data suffer from time delays of up to as much as 

14 months, making the data outdated by the time they are available. For 

example, we asked states in a survey we conducted in 2001, how quickly 

job placement outcome data would be available to them from UI wage 

records. We found that for 30 states, the earliest time period that job 

placement data would be available was 6 months after an individual 

entered employment, with 15 states reporting that it may take 9 months or 

longer. Similarly, over half of states reported that obtaining the necessary 

information on employment retention could take a year or longer. In fact, 

current available data on the wage-related measures reflects performance 

from the previous program year. While UI wage records are the best data 

source currently available for documenting employment, the lack of timely 

data makes it difficult for state and local officials to use the performance 

measures for short-term program management, including improving onestop services. Some states and localities have developed other means, 

sometimes adding additional performance measures, to fill this 

information gap. 

Finally, there are no measures to gauge the performance of the one-stop 

system as a whole. At least 17 programs provide services through the onestop system and most have their own performance measures. Although 

these performance measures may be used for assessing outcomes for 

individual programs, they cannot be used to measure the success of the 

overall system. For example, no program has a measure to track job 

seekers who use only self-service or informational activities offered 

through the one-stop, which may constitute a large proportion of job 

seekers. Not knowing how many job seekers use the one-stop’s services 

limits the one-stop’s ability to assess its impact. Furthermore, state and 
Page 16 GAO-03-884T 

local officials told us that having multiple performance measures has 

impeded coordination among programs. There has been limited progress 

in developing overall performance measures for the one-stop system. 

Labor convened a working group in September 2001 to develop indicators 

of the one-stop system’s performance, but they have not yet issued them. 

As states and localities have implemented WIA, they have been hampered 

by funding issues, including flawed funding formulas and the lack of a 

funding source dedicated specifically to the one-stop infrastructure. We 

identified several issues associated with the current formulas. Formula 

factors used to allocate funds are not aligned with the target populations 

for these programs, there are time lags in the data used to determine these 

allocations, and there is excessive funding volatility associated with the 

Dislocated Worker Program that is unrelated to fluctuations in the target 

populations. As a result, states’ funding levels may not always be 

consistent with their actual need for services. In addition, no funding 

source exists with which to fund the one-stop infrastructure, and the 

volatile funding levels that states have experienced in the past 3 years have 

limited their ability to plan and develop their one-stop systems under WIA. 

Some of the factors used in the formulas to allocate funds are not clearly 

aligned with the programs’ target populations.10 For example, the Youth 

program targets a specific group of low-income youth with certain barriers 

to employment. However, two-thirds of its funds are distributed based on 

two factors that measure general unemployment rather than youth 

unemployment. The remaining third is distributed according to the 

number of low-income youth in states, but even this factor does not 

measure low-income youth who face barriers to employment. The target 

population and formula for the WIA Adult program also are misaligned. 

Basic services provided through the Adult program are open to all adults 

regardless of income, while low-income adults and public assistance 

recipients have priority for training and other more intensive services. 

However, the WIA Adult allocation formula is more narrowly focused on 

states’ relative shares of excess unemployment, unemployment in Areas of 

Substantial Unemployment (ASUs), and low-income adults. Finally, the 

Dislocated Worker Program is targeted to several specific categories of 

individuals, including those eligible for unemployment insurance and 

 10The formulas for distributing these funds to the states were left largely unchanged from 

those used to distribute funds under JTPA. 

Funding the System 

Envisioned under WIA Is 

Hampered by Flawed 

Funding Formulas and the 

Lack of a Specific Funding 

Source for the One-Stop 

Infrastructure 

Formulas Used to Allocate 

Funds Have Limitations 
Page 17 GAO-03-884T 

workers affected by mass layoffs. The factors used to distribute Dislocated 

Worker funds are not, however, specifically related to these populations. 

Two-thirds of program funds are distributed according to factors that 

measure general unemployment. One-third is distributed according to the 

number of long-term unemployed, a group that is no longer automatically 

eligible for the program. 

In addition to formula misalignment, allocations may not reflect current 

labor market conditions because there are time lags between when the 

data are collected and when the allocations are available to states. The 

oldest data are those used in the Youth and Adult program formulas to 

measure the relative numbers of low-income individuals in the states. The 

decennial Census is the source for these data, and allocations under this 

factor through 2002 are based on data from the 1990 Census. The data 

used to measure two of three factors for both the Youth and Adult 

programs are more recent, but are still as much as 12 months out of date. 

The time lags for the data used to calculate Dislocated Worker allocations 

range from 9 months to 18 months. 

Finally, funding for the Dislocated Worker Program suffers from excessive 

and unwarranted volatility—significantly more volatile, as much as 3 times 

more so, than funding for either the Youth or Adult program. Some states 

have reported that this volatility makes program planning difficult. While 

some degree of change in funding is to be expected due to changing 

dislocations in the workforce, changes in funding do not necessarily 

correspond to these changes. For example, changes in the numbers of 

workers affected by mass layoffs from year to year—one measure of 

dislocation activity—ran counter to changes in Dislocated Worker 

allocations in several states we examined. In New York, for example, 

dislocations due to mass layoffs increased by 138 percent in 2001, but 

funding allocations that year decreased by 26 percent. Conversely, in 1999, 

New York’s dislocations decreased by 34 percent, while funding 

allocations actually increased by 24 percent. 

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. As a 

result, small changes in unemployment can cause large changes in 

funding, and when the economy is strong and few states have 

unemployment over 4.5 percent, the states that do qualify for this pot of 
Page 18 GAO-03-884T 

funds may experience large funding increases even if their unemployment 

falls. In addition, the Dislocated Worker formula is not subject to the 

additional statutory provisions that mitigate volatility in Youth and Adult 

program funding. These provisions include “hold harmless” and “stop 

gain” constraints that limit changes in funding to within 90 and 130 percent 

of each state’s prior year allocation and also “small state minimums” that 

ensure that each state receives at least 0.25 percent of the total national 

allocation. While these provisions prevent dramatic shifts in funding from 

year to year, they also result in allocations that may not as closely track 

changes in the program target populations. 

Developing alternative funding formulas to address the issues we have 

identified is an important but challenging task. This task is complicated by 

the need to strike an appropriate balance among various objectives, such 

as using formula factors that are best aligned with program target 

populations and reducing time lags in data sources, while also using 

available data sources to measure these factors as accurately as possible. 

In addition, there have been proposals for reauthorizing WIA that would 

substantially modify the program target populations and funding streams, 

which in turn would have consequences for revising the funding formulas. 

Many of WIA’s mandatory partners have identified resource constraints as 

a major factor in their ability to participate in the one-stops. In fact, the 

participants in a GAO-sponsored symposium11 identified insufficient 

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

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

Employment Service program had not yet been able to co-locate within the 

one-stops. We were told by Employment Service officials and one-stop 

administrators we spoke with 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 a primary reason that, 

even when they co-located staff at the one-stop, they did so on a limited 

basis. As a result, mandatory partners had to employ a wide range of 

methods to provide the required support for the operation of the one-

 11The symposium included officials from the key associations representing state and local 

implementers, such as the National Association of Workforce Boards and the American 

Association of Community Colleges. 

Funding One-Stop 

Infrastructure Has Been 

Challenging 
Page 19 GAO-03-884T 

stops. Across all the sites we visited for an early implementation study, 

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. 

Mandatory partners also noted that restrictions on the use of their funds 

can serve as another constraint affecting their ability to contribute 

resources to the one-stops. Some programs have caps on administrative 

spending that affect their ability to contribute to the support of the onestop’s operations. For example, WIA’s Adult and Dislocated Worker 

programs have a 10-percent administrative cap that supports both the onestops’ operation and board staff at the local level. In addition, as we have 

reported in the past, regulations often prohibit states from using federal 

program funds for acquisition of real property or for construction.12 This 

means partners, such as those carrying out Perkins, cannot provide funds 

to buy or refurbish a one-stop building. Moreover, Adult Education and 

Literacy and Perkins officials noted that under WIA they can only use 

federal funds for the purpose of supporting the one-stop, though only a 

small portion of their funds come from federal sources. 

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.13 According to training providers, 

the data collection burden resulting from participation in WIA can be 

significant and may discourage them from participating. 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 

 12See Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns Over New 

Requirements, GAO-02-72, (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2001). 

13The most recently available data on the proportion of WIA job seekers who receive 

training shows an overall decline from JTPA figures. During program year 2001, 43 percent 

of participants who exited the adult and dislocated worker programs had received training 

under WIA. By comparison, during program year 1998, 73 percent of JTPA exiters 

(including adults, dislocated workers, and older workers) had received training. This 

decline may result from a variety of factors, one of which may be fewer training 

opportunities. 

WIA’s System for Certifying 

Training Providers May 

Reduce Training Options 

for Job Seekers 
Page 20 GAO-03-884T 

class. Even if they used other methods that may be less resource-intensive, 

training providers said privacy restrictions 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 states use 

for WIA and for 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. 

In addition to challenges arising from implementing portions of the law, 

state and local officials often cite the need for more help from Labor in 

terms of clearer guidance and definitions and greater opportunities for 

information sharing. Although Labor has provided broad guidance and 

technical assistance to aid the transition from JTPA to WIA, some 

workforce officials have told us that the guidance has not addressed 

specific implementation concerns. Efforts to design flexible programs that 

meet local needs could be enhanced if Labor addressed the concerns of 

workforce officials with specific guidance and disseminated information 

on best practices in a timely manner. A number of our studies have 

recommended that Labor be more proactive and provide better guidance 

and clearer definitions 

• on participant registration policies and on performance measure 

definitions to allow for accurate outcome tracking and better program 

accountability14

• on how to better administer the WIA dislocated worker program, 

including how to provide additional assistance to local areas using 

rapid response funds15

 14See Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to 

Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness, GAO-02-275 (Washington, D.C.: 

Feb. 1, 2002). 

15See Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula Would 

Enhance Dislocated Worker Program, GAO-02-274 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2002). 

States and Localities Seek 

More Help from Labor 
Page 21 GAO-03-884T 

• on how to more effectively administer the WIA youth program, 

including how to recruit and engage parents, youth, and the business 

community; improve competition in contracts for services to youth; 

determine eligibility; and retain out-of-school youth16

• on a definition of unliquidated obligations so that it includes funds 

committed at the point of service delivery, specifies what constitutes 

an obligation and the timeframe for recording an obligation in order to 

improve financial reporting.17

Labor has taken limited steps to respond to these recommendations. It has 

released revised guidance on the performance measurement system and 

has allowed states to revise their negotiated performance levels, which 

may address possible disincentives to serving certain job seekers. Labor is 

also currently finalizing guidance for state and local areas on services for 

dislocated workers. In response to our recommendations pertaining to the 

WIA Youth Program, Labor agreed to issue a toolkit on effective youth 

councils; reach out to new providers to enhance competition; simplify 

eligibility documentation; and develop a best practices Web site on serving 

out-of-school youth. In addition, Labor agreed with our findings and 

recommendations related to providing clearer definitions of unliquidated 

obligations; however, it declined to consider obligations in assessing WIA’s 

financial position. Finally, Labor has convened a one-stop readiness 

workgroup that included representatives from Education, HHS, and HUD. 

This group has developed a set of suggested strategies for addressing 

major WIA implementation issues and plans to disseminate a national 

issuance, signed by the heads of all the federal partner agencies, that 

would emphasize the commitment of these federal partners to the onestop system. 

We have also recommended that Labor be more proactive in sharing 

various promising practices to help states and localities still struggling 

with implementation challenges. Our reports have recommended that 

Labor share promising practices in areas that include cost-effective 

 16See Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service Strategies, but 

Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development, GAO-02-413 (Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 5, 2002). 

17See Workforce Investment Act: States’ Spending Is on Track, but Better Guidance Would 

Improve Financial Reporting, GAO-03-239 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002). 
Page 22 GAO-03-884T 

methods of collecting training provider information, addressing the 

difficulties of using UI data in measuring outcomes, better ways to 

coordinate services for TANF clients through the one-stop, and better 

spending management strategies. 

While Labor has developed several mechanisms for providing guidance 

and allowing local one-stop administrators to share best practice 

information, these efforts have been limited. Labor is establishing a new 

unit within ETA—the Office of Performance and Results—whose function 

will be to coordinate efforts to identify and share promising approaches in 

areas such as the use of supplemental data sources to close gaps in UI 

data. In addition, Labor’s primary mechanisms for distributing information 

about promising practices at one-stop centers are a Web site, forums, and 

conferences. The promising practices Web site, in particular, represents a 

good step toward building a mechanism to support information sharing 

among one-stop administrators. However, neither Labor nor the Web site’s 

administrators have conducted a customer satisfaction survey or user 

evaluation of the site, so little is known about how well the site currently 

meets its objective to promote information sharing about promising 

practices at one-stop centers. In addition to the Web site, Labor 

cosponsors several national conferences to promote information sharing 

and networking opportunities for state and local grantees and 

stakeholders. Labor also hosted several forums during WIA 

implementation to allow information exchanges to occur between the 

department and state and local one-stop administrators. While these 

conferences and forums provide a venue for one-stop managers to talk 

with one another about what is and is not working at their centers, 

participation is limited to those who can physically take part. 

WIA represents a fundamental shift in the way federally funded 

employment and training services are delivered to job seekers and 

employers. It was, perhaps, a far more radical change than it initially 

appeared. But, in just under 3 years, states and localities have learned to 

embrace its flexibility, developing systems that meet local needs. They are 

doing what WIA envisioned—bringing on new partnerships and forging 

new relationships at all levels. They are actively working to engage the 

employer community and involve intermediaries and others to address the 

economic development needs of local communities. The process of 

implementation has not been perfect, but it is moving forward. Some 

aspects of the law that have caused difficulties may deserve attention 

during reauthorization. But, given the significant changes brought about by 

Concluding 

Observations 
Page 23 GAO-03-884T 

WIA, more time may be needed to allow a better assessment of what is 

working and what is not before making major changes in WIA’s structure. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to 

answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may 

have. 

For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact Sigurd R. 

Nilsen at (202) 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this 

testimony included Dianne Blank, Elisabeth Anderson, Katrina Ryan, and 

Tamara Harris. 

GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments 
Page 24 GAO-03-884T 

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. 

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and 

Performance Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington, 

D.C.: April 18, 2003. 

Food Stamp Employment and Training Program: Better Data Needed to 

Understand Who Is Served and What the Program Achieves. GAO-03-388. 

Washington, D.C.: March 12, 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. 

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. 

Related GAO Products 
Page 25 GAO-03-884T 

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. 

Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of 

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

(130280) 
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. 
The General Accounting 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 the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext 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 www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily 

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

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 

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 

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 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs