Report to Congressional Requesters

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

August 2005 REGISTERED 

APPRENTICESHIP 

PROGRAMS 

Labor Can Better Use 

Data to Target 

Oversight 

GAO-05-886 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-886.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at 

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

Highlights of GAO-05-886, a report to 

congressional requesters 

August 2005

REGISTERED APPRENTICESHIP 

PROGRAMS 

Labor Can Better Use Data to Target 

Oversight 

Labor’s monitoring of programs it directly oversees has been limited. We 

found that in 2004 Labor reviewed only 4 percent of programs in the 23 

states where it has direct oversight. According to federal program directors 

in those states, limited staff constrained their ability to do more reviews. 

Also, Labor has focused in recent years on registering new programs and 

recruiting apprentices. Although Labor collects much data about the 

programs it oversees, it has not employed its database to generate 

information indicative of program performance, such as completion rates, 

that might allow it to be more efficient in its oversight. 

Labor does not regularly review council-monitored states or collect data 

from them that would allow for a national picture of apprenticeships. Labor 

is responsible for conducting formal reviews of the 27 states and the District 

of Columbia that established apprenticeship councils to monitor their own 

apprenticeship programs; but, according to directors in these states, the 

reviews have been infrequent and not necessarily useful. While Labor 

collects only aggregate data on apprentices from most of these states, we 

identified 10 states with large numbers of apprentices that were willing and 

capable of providing GAO data on apprentices by occupation as well as 

some information on completion rates, completion times, and wages. 

Data in Labor’s apprenticeship database and from council-monitored states 

show that completion rates and wages for construction apprentices in 

programs sponsored jointly by employers and unions were higher than those 

for programs sponsored by employers alone. We found that completion rates 

for apprentices in programs jointly sponsored by unions and employers were 

47 percent on average compared with 30 percent in programs sponsored 

solely by employers. Completion rates declined under both types of 

sponsorship for the period we examined, but Labor, as part of its oversight, 

does not track reasons for noncompletion, making it difficult to determine 

what lies behind this trend. 

Construction Apprentices at Work 

Source: Department of Labor/OATELS.

Between 2002 and 2012 nearly 

850,000 jobs will open in the 

construction industry; experts 

predict that there will not be 

enough skilled workers to fill them. 

This has heightened concerns 

about program outcomes and 

program quality in the nation’s 

apprenticeship system and the 

Department of Labor’s oversight of 

it. GAO assessed (1) the extent to 

which Labor monitors registered 

apprenticeship programs in the 

states where it has direct oversight, 

(2) its oversight activities in states 

that do their own monitoring, and 

(3) the outcomes for construction 

apprentices in programs sponsored 

by employers and unions in 

relation to programs sponsored by 

employers alone. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Labor 

better utilize its database for 

oversight—particularly for 

apprenticeship programs with 

expected future labor shortages—

develop a cost effective strategy for 

collecting data from councilmonitored states for selected 

occupations, conduct its reviews of 

apprenticeship activities in states 

that regulate their own programs 

on a regular basis to ensure that 

state activities are in accord with 

those requirements set forth by 

federal law, and offer substantive 

feedback. Labor concurred with 

these recommendations and said it 

has taken initial steps to implement 

them. 
Page i GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 5 

Labor’s Monitoring of Registered Apprenticeship Programs Is 

Limited 7 

Labor Has Reviewed Council-Monitored States Infrequently, 

Provided Little Feedback, and Not Collected Data That Would 

Allow for a National Picture of Apprenticeships 12 

Construction Apprenticeship Completion Rates and Wages Vary by 

Program Sponsor 16 

Conclusions 25 

Recommendations 25 

Agency Comments 26 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 27 

Appendix II Completion Rates, Time Taken to Complete, and 

Wages for Construction Apprentices in CouncilMonitored States 30 

Appendix III Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships 

in Federally-Monitored States 38 

Appendix IV Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships 

in Council-Monitored States 51 

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Labor 63 

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 65 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Related GAO Products 66 

Tables 

Table 1: Differences between Actual and Expected Completion 

Time for Apprentices in Joint and Non-joint Construction 

Programs in Weeks 23 

Table 2: Survey Numbers and Response Rates 28 

Table 3: Percentages of Apprentices Completing Joint and Nonjoint Construction Programs as Reported by Selected 

Council-monitored States for Fiscal Years 1997-2004 30 

Table 4: Average Number of Weeks Spent to Complete Joint and 

Non-joint Construction Apprenticeship Programs as 

Reported by Selected Council-monitored States 32 

Table 5: Mean Hourly Wage Rates for Beginning Apprentices in 

Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs as Reported by 

Selected Council-monitored States, Fiscal Year 2004 34 

Table 6: Mean Hourly Wage Rates for Apprentices Achieving 

Journey Status in Joint and Non-joint Construction 

Programs as Reported by Selected Council-monitored 

States, Fiscal Year 2004 36 

Figures 

Figure 1: States with Apprenticeship Programs Overseen by 

Federal Officials and State Apprenticeship Councils 6 

Figure 2: Frequency of Quality and Equal Employment Opportunity 

Reviews of Apprenticeship Programs in Federally- and 

Council-monitored States during Fiscal Year 2004 9 

Figure 3: Frequency of Federal Reviews of Council-monitored 

States 13 

Figure 4: Council-monitored States’ Rankings of the Usefulness of 

Federal Quality Reviews 14 

Figure 5: Council-monitored States’ Rankings of the Usefulness of 

EEO Reviews 15 

Figure 6: Completion Rates after 6 Years for Apprentices Entering 

Construction Programs in FY 1994 through 1998 18 

Figure 7: Completion Rates after 6 Years by Occupation for 

Apprentices Who Began Joint and Non-joint Construction 

Programs between FY 1994 and 1998 19 
Page iii GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Figure 8: Enrollment for Apprentices in Joint and Non-joint 

Construction Programs, FY 1994 through 1998 21 

Figure 9: Trends in Completion Rates after 6 Years for Apprentices 

in Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs Entering 

Programs in FY 1994 through 1998 22 

Figure 10: Average Wages for Apprentices in Joint and Non-Joint 

Construction Programs in FY 2004 24 

Abbreviations 

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity 

ETA Employment and Training Administration 

OATELS Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor 

 Services 

RAIS Registered Apprenticeship Information System 

SAC State Apprenticeship Council 

WIA Workforce Investment Act 
Page iv GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

August 29, 2005 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 

United States Senate 

Between 2002 and 2012 an estimated 850,000 jobs will open in the 

construction industry, but experts predict that there will not be enough 

skilled workers to fill them. The National Registered Apprenticeships 

System, administered by the Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer 

and Labor Services (OATELS) within the Department of Labor, has an 

important role in the development of this skilled workforce. With a budget 

of $21 million, OATELS promulgates standards to safeguard the welfare of 

apprentices and registers apprenticeship programs that meet those 

standards, which include requirements for related instruction, on-the-job 

training, and equal employment opportunity for apprentices. OATELS also 

oversees apprenticeship programs to ensure that they provide quality 

training for apprentices, as many as 480,000 of whom may be enrolled at 

any one time. Labor, through OATELS, directly registers and oversees 

programs in 23 states. It has granted 27 other states, the District of 

Columbia, and 3 territories authority to register and oversee their own 

programs, and ensures programs comply with federal standards and meet 

additional state standards. In these states, referred to here as councilmonitored states, OATELS reviews the activities of the apprenticeship 

councils that are responsible for ensuring programs in their state comply 

with federal labor standards and equal opportunity protections. While 

Labor and apprenticeship councils provide oversight, recent studies have 

shown that a significant number of construction apprentices are not 

completing their programs and that construction programs sponsored by 

employers without union participation have lower completion rates and 

wages for apprentices. In addition, some have raised concerns that the 

failure to complete programs could be indicative of poor program quality. 

The anticipated shortage of skilled construction workers has heightened 

concerns about the relationship between program outcomes and program 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

quality, the prospect for expanding the supply of skilled workers through 

apprenticeships, and Labor’s oversight of these programs. 

In view of these concerns, you asked us to review the extent of federal 

oversight of apprenticeship programs in general and compare 

apprenticeship outcomes in the construction industry by type of program 

sponsorship. Specifically, we assessed (1) the extent to which the 

U.S. Department of Labor monitors the operations and outcomes of 

registered apprenticeship programs in the states where it has direct 

oversight, (2) its oversight activities for council-monitored states, and 

(3) the outcomes for construction apprentices in programs sponsored 

jointly by employers and unions in relation to those sponsored by 

employers alone. 

To obtain national information on Labor’s monitoring and oversight 

activities, we surveyed all state directors of apprenticeship training 

programs through electronic questionnaires posted on the World Wide 

Web. We excluded the three territories—Guam, Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands—from our analyses because the few programs they had 

were atypical. We also visited four states, both federal (Texas) and 

council-monitored (California, New York, and Washington), that had large 

numbers of construction apprentices (from about 52,000 to 6,500). In these 

states, we talked to knowledgeable officials, private-sector experts and 

stakeholders, including employer and labor union sponsors of 

apprenticeship programs. In some cases, we visited apprentice training 

facilities. To determine completion rates, times to completion, and wage 

rates for apprentices, we analyzed data in Labor’s apprenticeship database 

for the fiscal years 1994 through 2004. In calculating completion rates, we 

constructed five cohorts based on when apprentices enrolled in a 

program—1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, or 1998—and established their 

completion status 6 years after they enrolled. These analyses included data 

on programs in 23 states where Labor has direct oversight and programs in 

8 council-monitored states.1

 In addition, we obtained comparable data on 

construction programs from 10 council-monitored states that have large 

numbers of construction apprentices and were able to provide this 

information. The 41 states for which we had some type of data accounted 

for an estimated 92 percent of all construction apprentices. We also 

interviewed Labor officials and other knowledgeable parties. (See app. I.) 

 1

Labor’s database also includes data from some federally registered programs in councilmonitored states. 
Page 3 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

We conducted our work between August of 2004 and July 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Labor’s monitoring of the programs it directly oversees has been limited, 

in part, due to staffing levels and also its reluctance to use data to target 

oversight. In 2004, Labor reviewed only 4 percent of programs in the 

23 states where it has direct oversight, in part, because of limited staffing, 

according to federal program directors in those states. Currently each 

reviewer has responsibility for about 2,000 apprentices for whom they 

enter apprentice and program information in Labor’s database, in addition 

to reviewing program quality and equal employment opportunities, and 

overseeing program progress. Labor officials also said that in recent years 

their resources have been more focused on developing new programs and 

recruiting apprentices, particularly for new fields. Although Labor collects 

much data about the programs it oversees, its Apprenticeship Office has 

not employed its database to generate information on program 

performance. Federal program directors for the states told us, for 

example, that they do not systematically use outcome data from the 

database, such as completion rates or apprentices’ reasons for dropping 

out, to determine which programs to review. This limited use of data may 

stem, in part, from challenges in accessing it. These program directors 

reported that they were not able to generate customized reports and that 

data fields had been changing frequently. Recently, however, the 

Apprenticeship Office has begun piloting new software that agency 

officials say will make it possible for federal program directors to 

effectively extract information from the database and generate customized 

reports. Still, federal program directors in two states who were already 

using the software said they were still unable to look at programs by 

occupation at the state level, a level of analysis that most state program 

directors—17 of 23 we surveyed—said they wanted. In addition, we found 

little evidence that the Apprenticeship Office had systematically sought 

input from federal program directors regarding their reporting needs or 

problems they might face in using the new software. Nor could Labor 

officials provide a plan with explicit steps for its implementation. 

Labor does not regularly review the activities of the states apprenticeship 

councils or collect data from them that would allow for a national picture 

of apprenticeships. Labor’s reviews have been infrequent, according to 

directors of apprenticeship systems in most of the 27 council-monitored 

states. Moreover, some directors reported not having had reviews in the 

last 9 to 12 years, and our examination of apprenticeship office documents 

indicated the department had conducted only three reviews for 2002 and 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

2003, and none for 2004. In addition, many directors reported the reviews 

were of limited use in helping them assess programs or make informed 

decisions about their administration, in part because of the limited 

feedback they received. While neither statute nor regulations specify the 

frequency of these reviews, according to Labor officials they are important 

for ensuring that states are fulfilling federal requirements for recognition 

and oversight of apprenticeship programs. Labor has only collected 

aggregate counts of apprentices from most of these states, and to date has 

been unable to develop a composite national picture of apprentices. We 

nevertheless found 10 states with large numbers of apprentices that 

readily provided apprentice data to us by industry, sponsor, and 

occupation, as well as some information on completions, on-time 

completions, and wages—information that Labor could use to build a 

national portrait of apprentices in key programs. 

Data in Labor’s apprenticeship database and from council-monitored 

states show that completion rates and wages for construction apprentices 

in programs sponsored jointly by employers and unions were higher than 

those for programs sponsored by employers alone. Of apprentices 

beginning training between 1994 and 1998 (and completing by 2004), on 

average, 47 percent of those in programs sponsored jointly with unions 

completed compared with 30 percent in programs sponsored solely by 

employers, a 17 percentage point difference. Officials said joint programs 

had higher completion rates because they were more established and 

more likely to provide mentoring and job placement services. Despite 

growth in construction program enrollments, completion rates 

consistently declined for both types of program sponsorship for the time 

period we examined. Specifically, while 59 percent of the apprentices who 

enrolled in construction programs in 1994 graduated within 6 years, only 

37 percent of 1998 enrollees did. Given that Labor, as part of its oversight, 

does not track the reasons for noncompletions, it is difficult to determine 

what lies behind this trend or what might account for differences in 

completion rates by type of sponsorship. Those apprentices that did 

complete programs within 6 years tended to finish earlier than they were 

expected to. Construction wages were generally higher for apprentices in 

joint programs than for those in non-joint programs—being more than 

$2.00 per hour higher on average at the start and $6.00 per hour higher on 

average at completion of training in 2004, the first full year Labor began 

collecting wage data. Factors that may explain such differences in wages 

include the presence of a collective bargaining agreement. 

In this report we recommend that the Secretary of Labor take steps to use 

the data Labor has to better target its oversight activities, develop a cost-
Page 5 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

effective strategy for collecting data from council-monitored states, and 

conduct regular reviews with feedback for those states. In its written 

comments on a draft of this report the Department of Labor concurred 

with these recommendations and said it is taking initial steps to implement 

them. 

Although apprenticeship programs in the United States are largely private 

systems that are paid for largely by program sponsors, the National 

Apprenticeship Act of 1937 authorizes and directs the Secretary of Labor 

to formulate and promote labor standards that safeguard the welfare of 

apprentices. The responsibility for formulating and promoting these 

standards resides with OATELS. OATELS had a staff of about 176 full-time 

equivalencies and an annual appropriation of about $21 million in 2004. In 

addition, because of budgetary constraints, OATELS officials do not 

expect resources to increase. At the national level, OATELS can register 

and deregister apprenticeship programs (i.e., give or take away federal 

recognition), issue nationally recognized, portable certificates to 

individuals who have completed registered programs, plan appropriate 

outreach activities targeted to attract women and minorities, and promote 

new apprenticeship programs to meet workforce needs. In addition to this 

national role, OATELS directly oversees individual apprenticeship 

programs in 23 states. In these states, the director for the state’s 

apprenticeship system and other program staff are federal employees who 

monitor individual apprenticeship programs for quality and their provision 

of equal opportunity. 

Labor can give authority to states to oversee their own apprenticeship 

programs if the state meets certain requirements. Labor has given this 

authority to 27 states, the District of Columbia, and three territories. In 

these states, which we refer to as council-monitored, the federal 

government is not responsible for monitoring individual apprenticeship 

programs; instead, the state is. It does so through state apprenticeship 

councils. OATELS does, however, conduct two types of reviews to 

determine how well the state fulfills its responsibilities. Quality reviews 

determine, in part, conformance with prescribed federal requirements 

concerning state apprenticeship laws, state council composition, and 

program registration, cancellation and deregistration provisions. Equal 

Employment Opportunity (EEO) reviews assess the conformity of state 

EEO plans, affirmative action activities, record-keeping procedures, and 

other activities with federal EEO regulations. In addition to these reviews, 

OATELS may also provide state agencies with federal staff to assist in dayto-day operations. 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

The number and type of construction apprenticeship programs are 

distributed differently across federally- and council-monitored states. 

Council-monitored states not only have more programs, but these 

programs are more likely to be jointly sponsored by employers and unions 

than sponsored by employers alone. On average, a construction 

apprenticeship program in federally-monitored states trains about 

17 apprentices and in council-monitored states trains about 20. Beyond 

this average, it’s important to note that there can be great variation among 

programs, with some having over 400 participants and others 1 or 2. 

Figure 1 identifies states where programs are federally- and councilmonitored. 

Figure 1: States with Apprenticeship Programs Overseen by Federal Officials and 

State Apprenticeship Councils 

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

Hawaii

Vt.

Ala.

Ariz. Ark.

Calif.

Ga.

Ill. Ind.

Iowa

Kans.

La.

Maine

Mo.

Nebr.

N.Mex.

N.Y.

N.Dak. Oreg.

Pa.

Tex.

Wisc.

Fla.

Miss.

N.C.

Ohio

Okla.

S.Dak.

Wyo.

Alaska

Idaho

Mont.

Wash.

Nev.

Utah

Colo.

Mich.

Minn.

W.Va. Va. Ky.

Federally-monitored states

Council-monitored states

Source: Department of Labor/OATELS.

S.C.

Tenn.

Virgin Islands

Guam
Page 7 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Both the federal and council-monitored states collect data on the 

individual programs they oversee. Labor maintains a large database called 

the Registered Apprenticeship Information System (RAIS) and collects 

information about individual programs, apprentices, and sponsors for 

apprenticeships in the 23 states where it has direct oversight and in 

8 council-monitored states that have chosen to report into this system. The 

other council-monitored states, 20 in total, maintain their own data and 

collect various pieces of information on apprenticeship systems. Labor 

does collect aggregate data on apprentices and programs from these 

states. 

In all states, individuals can enter the construction trades without 

completing formal apprenticeship programs, but many construction 

workers, particularly those working in highly skilled occupations that 

require extensive training, such as the electrical, carpentry, and plumbing 

trades, receive their training though registered apprenticeship programs. 

To complete their programs, apprentices must meet requirements for onthe-job training and classroom instruction that must meet the minimum 

standards for the trade as recognized by Labor or the state apprenticeship 

council. Programs in some trades, for example, commercial electricity, 

may take 5 years to complete but programs to train laborers may only take 

a year. Beginning apprentices’ wages generally start at about 40 percent of 

the wage of someone certified in a particular trade and rise to about 

90 percent of that wage near completion. Apprentices’ contracts with their 

program sponsors specify a schedule of wage increases. 

Although OATELS is responsible for overseeing thousands of 

apprenticeship programs in the states where it has direct oversight, it 

reviews few of these programs each year. Also, while its apprenticeship 

database collects much information about individual participants and 

programs, Labor hasn’t used these data to systematically generate program 

performance indicators such as completion rates. As a result, it lacks 

information that would allow it to identify poorly performing programs 

and adjust its oversight accordingly. Furthermore, despite many technical 

upgrades, Labor’s database hasn’t provided information that meets the 

needs of federal apprenticeship directors or the needs of other 

stakeholders. 

Labor’s Monitoring of 

Registered 

Apprenticeship 

Programs Is Limited 
Page 8 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

OATELS has reviewed very few of the apprenticeship programs in the 

states where it has direct oversight. Federal apprenticeship directors in 

these states reported they conducted 379 quality reviews in 2004, covering 

only about 4 percent of the programs under their watch. These reviews are 

done to determine, for example, whether sponsors have provided related 

instruction and on-the-job training hours in accordance with the standards 

for the program and whether wages reflected actual time in the program. 

The number of reviews conducted varied across states. On average, 

22 quality reviews per state were conducted, but one director reported 

conducting as many as 67 reviews while another reported conducting no 

reviews at all. In addition, programs in council-monitored states were 

almost twice as likely as programs in federally-monitored states to have 

been reviewed within 3 years. (See fig. 2.) Several federal officials said 

over the past several years they had placed primary emphasis on 

registering new programs and recruiting more apprentices, particularly in 

nontraditional areas such as childcare and health. In addition, they told us 

it was not possible to do more reviews in part because of limited staff. 

Few Federal Staff Are 

Engaged in Monitoring the 

Programs That Labor 

Directly Oversees 
Page 9 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Figure 2: Frequency of Quality and Equal Employment Opportunity Reviews of 

Apprenticeship Programs in Federally- and Council-monitored States during Fiscal 

Year 2004 

In addition to having fewer reviews, apprenticeships in federallymonitored states had fewer staff dedicated to monitoring activities than 

council-monitored states. In 2004, each staff person in a federally 

monitored state was responsible, on average, for about 2,000 apprentices, 

according to federal program directors; to put this in context, case loads 

of monitors in federally-monitored states were almost twice as large as 

those in council-monitored states. In federally-monitored states, on 

average there were about 2.5 staff to monitor programs, less than one-third 

the average in council-monitored states. Labor’s practice of assigning 

federal staff to monitor programs in 18 of the council-monitored states 

rather than to programs in federally-monitored states compounded 

differences in staff resources. Directors in council-monitored states 

reported that at least two federal employees, on average, monitored 

programs in their jurisdiction. As important as the number of staff, is how 

they spent their time. About a half of the staff in federally-monitored states 

0

5

10

15

Didn't

know

Less 

frequently 

than every 

3 years

Once 

every 

3 years

Once

every 2

years

Once a

year or

more

Didn't

know

Less 

frequently

than every

3 years

Once

every

3 years

Once

every

2 years

Once a

year or

more

Number of states

Quality reviews Equal employment opportunity reviews

Respondents

Federally-monitored states

6

12

6

10

2 2

1 1 1

7

4

5

11

6

8

3 3

8

2

4

Council-monitored states

Source: GAO survey of apprenticeship directors in federally- and council-monitored states. 
Page 10 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

spent 40 percent or more of their time in the field performing monitoring, 

oversight, and providing related technical assistance, according to federal 

program directors whereas one-half of the staff in council-monitored 

states spent about 70 percent or more in the field. 

Although Labor collects information to compute completion rates and 

track participants who do not complete programs in the time expected, it 

does not use these data to focus its oversight efforts on programs with 

poor performance. During a site visit in a federally-monitored state, a 

monitor showed us how she computed cancellation rates by hand for 

apprentices in programs that she felt were not doing an adequate job of 

training apprentices to see if her hypotheses were correct. In the absence 

of performance information, directors and staff in federally-monitored 

states reported that a variety of factors dictated which programs to review. 

These included size, newness, location, date of the last review, sponsor’s 

cooperativeness, as well as the location of staff resources. 

In addition to not using program data to target reviews, Labor has not 

collected and consistently entered into its database information about why 

apprentices cancel out of programs, although its database was designed to 

include such information and having it could help target reviews. Officials 

told us that voluntary cancellation or transfers to another program were at 

times associated with program quality, while other nonvoluntary reasons, 

such as illness or military service, were not. Currently, recording the 

reason for an apprentice’s cancellation in the database is an optional field. 

We found that no reason was recorded for 60 percent of the cancellations 

and the remaining 40 percent did not effectively capture the reasons for 

leaving. Of the 18 reasons entered, the most common reasons were 

“Unknown,” “Voluntarily Quit,” “Unsatisfactory Performance,” 

“Discharged/Released,” and “Cancelled with the Occupation,” some of 

which did not provide useful information to target reviews. Also, other 

entries were close duplicates of one another, such as “left for related 

employment” and “left for other employment.” 

Labor also treats as optional data entries for its equal employment 

opportunity reviews: including the date of the last review, compliance 

status, status of corrective actions, and other information that would 

improve the efficiency of managing reviews. As a result, such data were 

available for about 5 percent of programs in Labor’s database in fiscal year 

2004. Without this information, it is more difficult to determine when 

programs had their last EEO review and to readily identify programs with 

known problems. 

While Labor Collects Much 

Information about 

Apprenticeship Programs, 

It Does Not Systematically 

Use Data to Focus Its 

Oversight 
Page 11 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Despite many technical upgrades, Labor’s database hasn’t provided 

information that meets the needs of its federal directors or the needs of 

other stakeholders. While acknowledging that Labor’s database has been 

updated and improved, 22 out of the 23 directors of apprenticeship 

programs and their monitoring staff have expressed dissatisfaction with 

the present system. One complained of “daily” changes to the data fields 

without being informed of “why or when they will change.” Expressing the 

desire to select and sort data on any field and generate unique reports in 

context with all available data, another concluded, “In short, we need a lot 

of flexibility with database reports that we don’t have at this time.” Many 

federal apprenticeship directors made recommendations for improving the 

database. In general, what state directors wanted most was a system that 

was stable, user friendly, and that would allow them to produce 

customized reports to better oversee the apprenticeship programs in their 

states. The list below shows those potential improvements endorsed by 

more than half of the state apprenticeship directors: 

• Increase the timeliness of notifications to state and regional offices for 

changes to RAIS (e.g., provide for more frequent communication), 

(22 of 23 surveyed states). 

• Simplify instruction and procedures for producing reports 

(18 of 23 surveyed states). 

• Allow production of customized state and regional reports by type of 

industry (18 of 23 surveyed states). 

• Allow production of customized state and regional reports by sponsor type 

(17 of 23) and occupational type (17 of 23 surveyed states). 

• Improve the frequency of RAIS training (17 of 23 surveyed states). 

• Improve the quality of RAIS training (16 of 23 surveyed states). 

• Simplify instructions and procedures for inputting and updating data 

(16 of 23 surveyed states). 

• Increase available coding options to explain why apprentices leave the 

program (14 of 23 surveyed states). 

• Allow production of customized state and regional reports by sex of 

apprentice and race of apprentice (14 of 23 surveyed states). 

OATELS has recently purchased software that enables users to extract 

data from Labor’s databases in order to produce customized reports. 

Purchased originally for the Secretary of Labor’s use, Labor Information 

Technology and OATELS officials said they foresaw the software’s utility 

for many programs and therefore decided to purchase licenses for 

apprenticeship field staff. However, OATELS has not necessarily taken 

steps to ensure field staff will be able to make optimal use of the software. 

About half the directors in federally-monitored states did not know the 

Labor’s Data Base Does 

Not Meet the Needs of 

Apprenticeship Directors 

and Other Stakeholders 
Page 12 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

software was available or what it was. Although the software was 

demonstrated at a directors’ meeting in 2004, several couldn’t recall the 

demonstration and others were not in attendance. Moreover, two of the 

directors lacked basic hardware, such as a high-speed cable needed to 

support the software. In fact, one director told us he was working from his 

home because his office didn’t have such basics as a cable hook-up for his 

computer. Even if such obstacles are surmounted, the new system may not 

meet the staffs’ data needs. Two directors who were already attempting to 

use the software reported to us that it did not allow them to select 

information using factors that would be most useful to them, such as statelevel data on apprenticeship programs. In addition, Labor could or would 

not supply us with formal documentation describing its plans to 

implement the software or its vision of how the software would be used by 

its staff. Labor also reported that because of budget constraints and the 

easy use of the new software, it had no plans to provide training. Without 

such plans, Labor’s commitment to the full implementation and future 

financing of the program is questionable. 

Labor has infrequently reviewed states to which it has delegated oversight 

responsibility. This includes both quality reviews and EEO reviews to 

assure that these states are in compliance with federal rules for overseeing 

apprenticeship programs and also adhering to equal employment 

opportunity requirements. Moreover, states that have been reviewed in 

recent years reported that they had little utility for helping them manage 

their programs, in part, because of the little feedback they received. In 

terms of providing information to Congress and others, Labor does not 

collect from these states information that is readily available on 

apprenticeships by occupation or industry, even for occupations where 

shortages of skilled workers are anticipated. 

Agency records indicate that Labor conducted only three quality and EEO 

reviews of council-monitored states in calendar years 2002 and 2003, and 

none in 2004 but has scheduled seven for 2005. State apprenticeship 

directors confirmed that reviews are infrequent. Twelve of the 27 directors 

in council-monitored states reported that OATELS had conducted reviews 

of their programs less frequently than once every 3 years and several 

responded that reviews had not taken place in the last 9 to 12 years. An 

additional five directors reported their states had never been reviewed or 

that they were unaware if such reviews had taken place. The remaining 

Labor Has Reviewed 

Council-Monitored 

States Infrequently, 

Provided Little 

Feedback, and Not 

Collected Data That 

Would Allow for a 

National Picture of 

Apprenticeships 

Labor Has Reviewed 

Council-Monitored States 

Infrequently in Recent 

Years 
Page 13 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

10 reported reviews took place in their states at least once every 3 years. 

(See fig. 3.) While neither statute nor regulation specifies the frequency 

with which OATELS should conduct such reviews, they constitute an 

important mechanism for ensuring that state laws conform to 

requirements necessary for Labor’s recognition of a state’s registered 

apprenticeship program. 

Figure 3: Frequency of Federal Reviews of Council-monitored States 

State directors reported that the Quality Reviews and the EEO Reviews 

had limited utility for helping them manage their programs. For example, 

only about half of them reported that the quality reviews were at least 

moderately useful for helping them determine their compliance with 

federal regulation. (See fig. 4.) Results were similar for the EEO reviews. 

(See fig. 5.) For example, slightly less than half of state directors reported 

that EEO reviews were at least moderately useful in helping them 

determine their compliance with federal EEO regulations. Some directors 

said reviews would be more useful if they focused on reviewing programrelated activities in the state. Eight of the directors suggested that Labor 

focus more on state and local conditions and the performance of 

apprenticeship programs instead of focusing only on whether councilmonitored states comply with federal standards. For example, one 

Officials in Most CouncilMonitored States Reported 

Reviews Were Not Very 

Useful, in Part Because of 

Limited Feedback 

0

5

10

15

Didn't 

know

Less

frequently

than every

3 years

Once

every

3 years

Once

every

2 years

Once a

year or

more

Number of states

Source: GAO survey of apprenticeship directors in states that do their own monitoring. 

3

2

5 5

12
Page 14 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

director reported the feedback he received on EEO activities was 

unrelated to the racial composition of the state. Also, some suggested 

reviews could provide opportunities for federal officials to provide 

assistance and share knowledge about strategies that other states have 

found useful. 

Figure 4: Council-monitored States’ Rankings of the Usefulness of Federal Quality 

Reviews 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Number of states

Very great or great extent

Moderate extent

Some, or little or no extent

Don't know

Source: GAO survey of apprenticeship directors in council-monitored states.

Making informed

decisions about

programs

Evaluating 

strengths and

weaknesses of

programs

Assessing how 

well programs 

comply with

federal

regulations

Completing

reports about

your state's

program

5

9

2 2

7

9

3

14

8

5

7

6

2

12

7

10
Page 15 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Figure 5: Council-monitored States’ Rankings of the Usefulness of EEO Reviews 

While directors had a number of ideas for improving the usefulness of 

quality and EEO reviews, many noted that Labor provided limited or no 

feedback as part of the review process. For example, one said his state 

agency received a brief letter from Labor stating only that the state was in 

compliance with federal regulations. Two others said their agencies 

received no documentation that a review had in fact been conducted, even 

though in one of these cases the state had made requests for the review 

findings. Officials in one state said feedback from their last review was 

positive and indicated no problems, but a few years later, OATELS took 

steps to get their state apprenticeship council derecognized with no prior 

notice or subsequent review. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Number of states

Very great or great extent

Moderate extent

Some, or little or no extent

Don't know

Source: GAO survey of apprenticeship directors in council-monitored states.

Making informed 

decisions about 

programs

Evaluating 

strengths and 

weaknesses of 

programs

Assessing how 

well programs 

comply with federal 

regulations

Completing reports 

about your state's 

program

4

8

4

1

9

6

5

11

10

6

9

4

5

9 9

8
Page 16 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Labor collects aggregate counts of apprentices for most council-monitored 

states and has not developed strategies to collect more detailed 

information that would allow for a description of apprenticeships at the 

national level, even for those where shortages of skilled workers are 

anticipated. Of the 28 council-monitored states, 20 have their own data 

system and do not report data to Labor’s apprenticeship database. These 

20 states represent about 68 percent of the nation’s apprentices. Labor and 

council-monitored states have differing opinions about why there are 

separate data systems. Labor officials told us that, as they were developing 

their database, they conducted outreach to council-monitored states. 

Officials from these states say otherwise. They also said that participating 

in Labor’s database would be an onerous process or that Labor’s system 

did not meet their state’s information needs and, therefore, they had 

invested the time and money to develop their own systems. Because many 

of these systems are not compatible with Labor’s, the agency collects only 

total counts of apprentices and programs from these 20 states, which it 

uses for its official reports. 

While incompatible data systems may suggest that it would be difficult or 

costly to obtain more than aggregate counts, in collecting data for this 

report, we found many of the council-monitored states—including 10 with 

large numbers of apprentices—were both willing and capable of providing 

us data on apprentices by industry and by occupation as well as 

information on completion rates, completion times, and some wage data 

for occupations that we had specified. In fact, one state reported that it 

had designed its apprenticeship database to collect all information 

required by Labor’s database and had offered to report these data to Labor 

electronically—but Labor had not taken steps to accept this offer. 

Nevertheless, as one director pointed out, having a unified data picture is 

central to OATELS’ oversight as well as its promotional activities and, as 

many agree, such a system would promote the health of the registered 

apprenticeship system. 

Construction apprentices in programs sponsored jointly by employers and 

unions (joint programs) generally completed at a higher rate and in greater 

numbers than those enrolled in programs sponsored by employers alone 

(non-joint programs). More importantly, despite growth in construction 

program enrollment, there has been a decline over time in completion 

rates for both types of programs. Completion rates declined from 

59 percent for apprentices enrolling in 1994 to 37 percent for apprentices 

enrolling in 1998. It is difficult to know what factors underlie this trend 

because, as noted earlier, Labor does not systematically record 

Labor Has Not Collected 

Data That Would Allow for 

a National Picture of 

Apprenticeships 

Construction 

Apprenticeship 

Completion Rates and 

Wages Vary by 

Program Sponsor 
Page 17 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

information about why apprentices leave programs. Apprentices who 

completed programs within 6 years tended to finish earlier than expected. 

In addition, wages for joint apprentices were generally higher at the start 

and upon completion of their programs. Data received from 10 councilmonitored states that do not report to Labor’s database generally mirrored 

these findings. 

Completion rates were generally higher for apprentices in joint programs 

than for those in non-joint programs. Of the apprentices who entered 

programs between 1994 and 1998, about 47 percent of apprentices in joint 

programs and 30 percent of apprentices in non-joint programs completed 

their apprenticeships by 2004. For five consecutive classes (1994-1998) of 

apprentices in Labor’s database, completion rates calculated after 6 years, 

were higher for joint programs, as shown in figure 6.2

 The data we received 

from 10 additional states that do not report into Labor’s database showed 

similar trends, with joint apprentices having higher completion rates. For 

complete data that we received from these 10 states, see appendix II. 

 2

Most apprenticeship programs in construction require 4 years to complete. In our analysis, 

we allowed for 6 years, to account for slow work periods and other delays. 

Nearly Half of Apprentices 

in Joint Programs 

Completed Their 

Apprenticeships Compared 

with about a Third in Nonjoint Programs 
Page 18 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Figure 6: Completion Rates after 6 Years for Apprentices Entering Construction 

Programs in FY 1994 through 1998 

For the programs in Labor’s database, this higher completion rate for joint 

apprenticeship programs was true for all but 1 of the 15 largest individual 

trades which collectively account for 93 percent of active apprentices in 

construction. (See fig. 7.) It should be noted that among the trades, 

themselves, there were substantial variations in completion rates, often 

due to the nature of work environment and other constraints, according to 

federal and state officials. For example, roofing programs, which have low 

completion rates, face unpredictable weather and seasonal work flows. 

Percentage of apprentices

Completed Cancelled

Respondents

Joint

63

46 46

52

34

42 44

27 28 26 26

66

34

44

26

43

38

58

48 46

27

63

46

65

48

42

48

10

Non-joint

Sources: GAO analysis of RAIS database. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Page 19 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Figure 7: Completion Rates after 6 Years by Occupation for Apprentices Who Began Joint and Non-joint Construction 

Programs between FY 1994 and 1998 

Officials said that joint programs have higher completion rates because 

they are more established and better funded. For some joint programs, 

these additional resources stem in part from union members paying a 

small portion of their paychecks into a general training fund that is used to 

help defray some of the training costs for apprentices. In addition, they 

suggested that, because unions tend to have a network of affiliates spread 

across an area, they are more likely to find work for participating 

apprentices in other areas when work is slow in a particular area. Local 

union chapters often have portability agreements with one another other, 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

60

29

36 35

52

31

59

27

55

30

18 17

50

9

51

31

39

16

51

18

54

61

29 28

53 53

29

25

45

24

Respondents

Percentage of apprentices completing in 6 years

Joint apprentices

Electrician

Carpenter

Plumber

Pipe fitter

Roofer

Structural steel 

Bricklayer

Painter

Operating engineer

Insulation worker

Cement mason

Millwright

Heating and air 

Construction craft laborer

conditioner

 installation and service 

Sheet metal 

Non-joint apprentices

Source: GAO analysis of RAIS database.

worker

worker
Page 20 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

which help to facilitate such transfers. Officials also said these programs 

provide mentoring and other social supports. 

Enrollments in construction apprenticeship programs more than doubled 

from 1994 to 1998, increasing from 20,670 construction apprentices to 

47,487.3

 (See fig. 8.) Meanwhile, completion rates declined from 59 percent 

for the class of 1994 to 37 percent for the class of 19984

. This decline for 

these cohorts held for both joint and non-joint programs. (See fig. 9.) 

Completion rates for joint apprentices dropped from nearly 63 percent to 

42 percent, and from 46 percent to 26 percent for non-joint apprentices. 

This trend was consistent across different occupations as well, with most 

experiencing declines. 

 3

Enrollment increased through fiscal year 2000, reaching a total of 59,625. Since then, there 

have been fewer apprentices enrolling in 2001 through 2004, with 36,325 apprentices 

enrolling in fiscal year 2004. 

4

Apprentices entering programs during 1994 to 1998 would be expected to completed these 

programs by 2000 to 2004 unless they dropped out. 

While Enrollments 

Increased, Completion 

Rates Declined in General 

for the Period Examined 
Page 21 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Figure 8: Enrollment for Apprentices in Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs, 

FY 1994 through 1998 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Source: GAO analysis of RAIS database.

Fiscal year

Enrollment (in thousands)

Joint

Non-joint

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Page 22 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Figure 9: Trends in Completion Rates after 6 Years for Apprentices in Joint and 

Non-joint Construction Programs Entering Programs in FY 1994 through 1998 

Because Labor does not systematically record the explanations that 

apprentices offer for canceling out of programs, it is difficult to determine 

what may lie behind this downward trend. Labor suggested that some 

apprentices may choose to acquire just enough training to make them 

marketable in the construction industry in lieu of completing a program 

and achieving journey status. While we cannot confirm this hypothesis, we 

did find that those apprentices who did cancel chose to do so after 

receiving over a year of training. Joint apprentices cancelled after 

92 weeks on average and non-joint apprentices cancelled after 85 weeks 

on average. Other reasons offered included a decline in work ethic, the 

emphasis placed by high schools on preparing students for college and the 

corresponding under-emphasis on preparation for the trades, and a lack of 

work in the construction industry. We cannot verify the extent to which 

unemployment played a role influencing outcomes, but, according to the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for construction 

increased overall from 6.2 percent to 8.4 percent between 2000 to 2004, 

despite the predictions of future worker shortages in construction. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Source: GAO analysis of RAIS database.

Fiscal year

Completion rate (percentage)

Joint

Non-joint

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Page 23 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Those apprentices who completed construction programs within 6 years 

tended to finish earlier than they were expected to, with apprentices in 

non-joint programs finishing a bit sooner than their joint counterparts. On 

average, joint apprentices completed their programs 12 weeks early and 

non-joint apprentices completed 35 weeks early. This trend was similar 

across the largest trades in terms of enrollment as shown in table 1 below. 

This may be due to the willingness of program sponsors to grant 

apprentices credit for previous work or classroom experience that was 

directly related to their apprenticeship requirements. 

Table 1: Differences between Actual and Expected Completion Time for Apprentices in Joint and Non-joint Construction 

Programs in Weeks 

Joint apprentices Non-joint apprentices 

Actual weeks 

to complete 

Expected weeks 

to complete Difference

Actual weeks 

to complete

Expected weeks 

to complete Difference

Electrician 237 240 3 weeks early 179 211 32 weeks early

Carpenter 

188 210

22 weeks 

early 184 208 24 weeks early

Plumber 

238 252

14 weeks 

early 171 220 49 weeks early

Source: GAO analysis of RAIS database. 

Apprentices in joint construction programs were paid higher wages at the 

start of their apprenticeships and were scheduled to receive higher wages 

upon completion of their programs. In 2004, the first year in which Labor 

collected information on starting wages, apprentices in joint programs 

earned $12.28 per hour while non-joint apprentices earned $9.90 at the 

start of their apprenticeships. These differences in wages were more 

pronounced at the journey level, that is, upon completion, with 

apprentices in joint programs scheduled to earn journey-level wages of 

$24.19 as compared with $17.85 for those in non-joint programs. As shown 

in figure 10, joint apprentices generally earned higher wages across the 

15 trades with the largest numbers of construction apprentices. There 

were three trades—carpenter, structural steel worker, and cement 

mason—for which starting wages were higher for non-joint apprentices. 

For journey-level wages there was only one trade for which wages were 

higher for non-joint apprentices—that of millwright. Officials we spoke 

with commonly attributed this distinction in wages to the bargaining 

process associated with joint programs. Data from the 10 additional states 

(outside Labor’s database) whose data we examined showed a similar 

pattern—with joint apprentices earning higher wages. (See app. II.) 

Apprentices in Both Joint 

and Non-joint 

Construction Programs 

Tended to Complete Their 

Programs Early 

Starting Wages and Wages 

upon Completion in Joint 

Construction Programs 

Were Higher on Average 

than Those for Apprentices 

in Non-joint Construction 

Programs 
Page 24 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Figure 10: Average Wages for Apprentices in Joint and Non-Joint Construction Programs in FY 2004 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

11.4

9

12.1 12.6

11.3

9.9

11.8

10

12.1 12.1

13.3

14.3 13.8

10.9

12.612.2 11.5

9.2

13.4

10.1

12.8 11.8

13.8

15.4

12.5

9.6

12.4

9.4

13.4

12.3

Average starting wages for apprentices (dollars per hour)

Electrician

Carpenter

Plumber

Pipe fitter

Roofer

Structural steel

Bricklayer

Painter

Operating engineer

Insulation worker

Millwright

Cement mason

Construction craft laborer

Heating and air conditioner

installation and service

Heating and air conditioner

installation and service 

Sheet metal 

Wages

Joint apprentices

Non-joint apprentices

Source: GAO analysis of RAIS database.

workerworker

Electrician

Carpenter

Plumber

Pipe fitter

Roofer

Structural steel

Bricklayer

Painter

Operating engineer

Insulation worker

Millwright

Cement mason

Construction craft laborer

Sheet metal 

worker

worker

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

25.5

17.4

23.8 23.1

24.6

17.4

25.8

17.7

25.3

18.3

22.3

18.2

26.6

18.7

23.3

16.1

23.8

15.6

24.4

14.7

22.3

17.6

24.3 24.1 23.3

15.5

22.7

16

21.7 23.1

Average scheduled journey wage (dollars per hour)
Page 25 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

As a small program with finite resources tasked with an important 

mission, it is incumbent on Labor’s Apprenticeship Office to leverage the 

tools at its disposal to carry out its oversight, all the more so during a 

period of tight budgets. Labor’s responsibility for assuring that registered 

apprenticeship programs meet appropriate standards is no small charge, 

given the thousands of programs in operation today. In terms of the 

programs it directly monitors, Labor has not made optimal use of the 

information it collects to target resources. The failure to do so limits the 

agency’s ability to target its oversight activities to address and remedy 

areas where there may be significant need, particularly the construction 

trades where completion rates are declining. Underscoring this point is the 

fact that apprenticeship directors in federally-monitored states cannot get 

easy access to the data in the form of customized reports. Irrespective of 

distinctions between apprentice outcomes for joint and non-joint 

programs, without better use of its data, Labor is still not in a position to 

assess programs on their individual merits. Given the relatively limited 

number of staff available for field visits, by not using the program data it 

has, Labor misses opportunities to more efficiently use its staff. 

With regard to states with council-monitored apprenticeship programs, 

Labor’s oversight practices do not necessarily ensure that those states’ 

activities comply with federal standards for oversight because the 

Apprenticeship Office has only sporadically assessed their operations. 

Moreover, to the extent that the federal office does not provide useful 

feedback to the states when it does conduct reviews, states may lose 

opportunities to improve programs under their jurisdiction. Finally, 

because Labor does not seek much information beyond aggregate 

numbers from a majority of council-monitored states, policymakers lose 

an opportunity to gain perspective and insight for aligning workforce 

training with national needs, specifically for key occupations within 

construction that are likely to be faced with shortages of skilled workers 

in the near future. 

We recommend that the Secretary of Labor take steps to (1) better utilize 

information in Labor’s database, such as indicators of program 

performance, for management oversight, particularly for apprenticeship 

programs in occupations with expected future labor shortages; (2) develop 

a cost-effective strategy for collecting data from council-monitored states; 

(3) conduct Labor’s reviews of apprenticeship activities in states that 

regulate their own programs on a regular basis to ensure that state 

activities are in accord with Labor’s requirements for recognition of 

Conclusions 

Recommendations 
Page 26 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

apprenticeship programs; and (4) offer substantive feedback to states from 

its reviews. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor for review 

and comment. Labor provided written comments on the draft report that 

are reproduced in appendix V. Labor concurred with our 

recommendations and has already taken steps to obtain data on 

apprenticeships from some council-monitored states and to regularly 

review activities in these states. Further, Labor stated it plans to use the 

data to better target the performance of the apprenticeship programs that 

OATELS directly registers and oversees, and to provide improved 

feedback to states that register and oversee their own apprenticeship 

programs. 

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further 

distribution of this report until 14 days after the date of this letter. At that 

time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor and other 

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

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

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Please contact me on 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov if you or your staff have 

any questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix VI. 

Sigurd R. Nilsen 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 

Agency Comments 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 27 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which the 

U.S. Department of Labor monitors the operations and outcomes of 

registered apprenticeship programs in the states where it has direct 

oversight, (2) its oversight activities for council-monitored states, and 

(3) outcomes for construction apprentices in programs sponsored jointly 

by employers and unions in relation to those sponsored by employers 

alone. 

To carry out these objectives, we surveyed OATELS officials in charge of 

apprenticeship programs in 23 federally monitored states and state 

apprenticeship directors in 28 states, including the District of Columbia, 

where state apprenticeship councils oversee programs. We used two 

surveys—one for federally- monitored states and one for councilmonitored states—to obtain national information on OATELS’ monitoring 

and oversight activities. We focused only on apprentices in the civilian 

sector of the economy and did not include military or prison-based 

programs. We asked questions designed to determine the amount of 

resources devoted to oversight, the frequency of oversight activities, and 

the outcomes from these activities. The surveys were conducted using 

self-administered electronic questionnaires posted on the World Wide 

Web. We pretested our surveys with a total of five federally-monitored and 

council-monitored state officials to determine if the surveys were 

understandable and if the information was feasible to collect. We then 

refined the questionnaire as appropriate. We sent e-mail notifications to all 

federally-monitored and council-monitored state officials on January 5, 

2005. We then sent each potential respondent a unique password and 

username by e-mail on January 13, 2005, to ensure that only members of 

the target population could participate in the appropriate survey. To 

encourage respondents to complete the surveys, we sent e-mail messages 

to prompt each nonrespondent approximately 11⁄2 weeks after the initial 

e-mail message and a final e-mail reminder on February 7, 2005. We also 

called nonrespondents to encourage them to complete the survey. We 

closed the surveys on March 18, 2005. We received responses from all 

23 federally-monitored and 27 of 28 council-monitored state officials 

including the District of Columbia. (See table 2.) Copies of the surveys are 

provided in appendices III and IV. 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 28 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Table 2: Survey Numbers and Response Rates 

Respondents Surveys conducted Surveys received

Federally-monitored states 23 23

Council-monitored states 

and the District of Columbia 28 27

Source: GAO. 

To examine the outcomes for apprentices in the construction industry, we 

analyzed data from Labor’s RAIS database. In calculating completion rates, 

we constructed five cohorts based on when they enrolled in their 

programs; we had cohorts for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998. 

We then considered the status of these cohorts 6 years after they enrolled 

to determine if they had completed, cancelled, or remained in training. Our 

analysis of wage data focused on data collected in fiscal year 2004, the first 

full year that Labor began collecting such information. We assessed the 

reliability of the RAIS database by reviewing relevant information on the 

database, interviewing relevant OATELS officials, and conducting our own 

testing of the database. This testing included examining the completeness 

of the data, performing data reliability checks, and assessing the internal 

controls of the data. Based on this information and our analysis, we 

determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

our report. 

Because Labor’s RAIS database does not contain data from all states, we 

supplemented these data with data from 10 council-monitored states that 

do not report to this database. We selected these states based on the 

number of apprentices they had and whether their data were in an 

electronic format that would facilitate extracting and sending these data to 

us. We submitted a data request that asked for selected information on 

enrollment, completion, and wages for the 10 largest apprenticeship 

occupations to these states and received data from all of them. We 

determined that these data were reliable for our purposes. We did not 

combine these data with those from RAIS; we used them as a means of 

comparison. 

To learn more about the oversight of apprenticeship programs and their 

outcomes, we conducted site visits to four states—New York, California, 

Texas, and Washington. These states represented both federal and councilmonitored states and had large numbers (from a high of about 52,000 to a 

low of 6,500) of construction apprentices. On these site visits, we 

interviewed relevant federal and state officials along with joint and non-
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 29 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

joint program sponsors. We also toured facilities in two states where 

certain apprentices are trained. 

Throughout the engagement we interviewed relevant Labor officials and 

experts that have researched apprenticeship programs and reviewed 

relevant past reports and evaluations of these programs. We conducted 

our review from August 2004 through July 2005 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken 

to Complete, and Wages for Construction 

Apprentices in Council-Monitored States 

Page 30 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Table 3: Percentages of Apprentices Completing Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs as Reported by Selected 

Council-monitored States for Fiscal Years 1997-2004 

Californiaa

KentuckybMarylandcMassachusettsdMinnesotad

Joint 

Nonjoint JointNonjoint JointNonjoint Joint Nonjoint JointNonJoint

Electrician 48 32 60 38 52 35 63 38 77 25

Carpenter 22 12 20 0 26 27 48 0 20 0

Plumber 46 25 65 67 45 10 77 25 59 20

Pipe fitter 43 20 89 0 66 0 — — — —

Sheet metal worker 55 19 58 0 50 56 — — — —

Structural steel worker 35 — 26 — 33 — — — — —

Bricklayer 28 0 — 56 37 8 — — — —

Roofer 7 8 35 — 0 — — — — —

Painter 27 15 33 — 18 — — — — —

Operating engineer 53 0 50 — 47 — — — — —

Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken 

to Complete, and Wages for Construction 

Apprentices in Council-Monitored States 
Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken 

to Complete, and Wages for Construction 

Apprentices in Council-Monitored States 

Page 31 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

New York OregoneVirginiafWashingtongWisconsinh

Joint 

Nonjoint Joint Nonjoint- JointNonjoint JointNonjoint JointNonjoint

68 12 65 — 42 20 62 38 86 90

36 28 20 — 47 16 32 21 69 55

53 15 49 — 67 25 94 22 75 56

90 13 46 — 58 22 70 — 82 33

70 0 41 — 10 27 37 0 63 45

61 0 41 — 50 7 41 — — —

37 11 44 — 16 25 33 — 51 67

21 8 5 — — — 6 — 43 0

25 0 25 — — 0 11 — 47 50

65 0 29 — 60 — 52 7 81 —

Source: Data were provided by selected council-monitored states. 

Note: Data include apprentices entering program from October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998, 

and completing before October 1, 2004. 

a

California reported no structural steel worker non-joint programs. 

b

Kentucky reported that no apprentices entered bricklayer joint programs or carpenter, structural steel 

worker, roofer, painter, and operating engineer non-joint programs from October 1, 1997, through 

September 30, 1998. 

c

Maryland reported that no apprentices entered structural steel worker, roofer, painter, and operating 

engineer non-joint programs from October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998. 

d

Massachusetts and Minnesota reported data for electrician, carpenter, and plumber programs only. 

We told state directors they could do this in order to save resources and because these three fields 

represent over half of all apprentices in the construction trades. 

e

Oregon reported that no non-joint apprenticeship programs are registered in the state. 

f

Virginia reported that no apprentices entered roofer and painter joint programs, and roofer and 

operating engineer non-joint programs from October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998. 

g

Washington reported no pipe fitter, structural steel worker, bricklayer, roofer, and painter non-joint 

programs. 

h

Wisconsin reported no structural steel worker joint or non-joint programs and no operating engineer 

non-joint programs. 
Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken 

to Complete, and Wages for Construction 

Apprentices in Council-Monitored States 

Page 32 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Table 4: Average Number of Weeks Spent to Complete Joint and Non-joint Construction Apprenticeship Programs as 

Reported by Selected Council-monitored States 

Californiaa

 Kentuckyb Marylandc Massachusettsc Minnesotad

Joint 

Nonjoint JointNonjoint JointNonjoint Joint Nonjoint JointNonjoint

Electrician 225 218 253 177 — — — — 208 60

Carpenter 188 140 219 — — — — — 191 —

Plumber 232 203 247 151 — — — — 213 85

Pipe fitter 231 191 234 — — — — — — —

Sheet metal worker 224 217 226 — — — — — — —

Structural steel worker 167 — 156 — — — — — — —

Bricklayer 140 — — 149 — — — — — —

Roofer 192 188 184 — — — — — — —

Painter 152 119 234 — — — — — — —

Operating engineer 183 — 150 — — — — — — —
Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken 

to Complete, and Wages for Construction 

Apprentices in Council-Monitored States 

Page 33 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

New YorkeOregonfVirginiagWashingtonhWisconsini

Joint 

Nonjoint Joint Nonjoint JointNonjoint JointNonjoint JointNonjoint

290 219 205 — 240 166 233 209 256 264

165 213 176 — 169 234 201 184 207 204

262 247 211 — 254 168 234 161 274 280

209 — 198 — 214 201 247 — 259 216

217 52 217 — 214 104 219 — 264 244

162 — 188 — 154 196 149 — — —

155 174 171 — 159 215 161 — 173 139

197 174 146 — — — 121 — 165 —-

166 — 164 — — — 115 — 208 157

194 — 261 — 149 — 198 — 140 —

Source: Data were provided by selected council-monitored states. 

Note: Data include apprentices entering program from October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998, 

and completing before October 1, 2004. 

a

California reported no structural steel worker non-joint programs and no completers from bricklayer 

and operating engineer non-joint programs. 

b

Kentucky reported that no apprentices entered bricklayer joint programs and carpenter, pipe fitter, 

structural steel, sheet metal worker, roofer, painter, and operating engineer non-joint programs from 

October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998. 

c

Maryland and Massachusetts do not track these data. 

d

Minnesota reported data for electrician, carpenter, and plumber programs only and reported no 

completions for carpenters in non-joint programs. We told state directors they could report only for 

these three fields in order to save resources and because these three fields represent over half of all 

apprentices in the construction trades. 

e

New York reported no completers for pipe fitter, structural steel worker, painter, and operating 

engineer non-joint programs. 

f

Oregon reported no non-joint apprenticeship programs are registered in the state. 

g

Virginia reported no apprentices entered roofer and painter joint programs and roofer, painter and 

operating engineer non-joint programs from October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998. 

h

Washington reported no pipe fitter, structural steel worker, bricklayer, operating engineer and roofer 

non-joint programs. Also, no apprentices completed sheet metal worker and painter non-joint 

programs. 

i

Wisconsin reported no structural steel worker programs and no roofer and operating engineer nonjoint programs. 
Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken 

to Complete, and Wages for Construction 

Apprentices in Council-Monitored States 

Page 34 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Table 5: Mean Hourly Wage Rates for Beginning Apprentices in Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs as Reported by 

Selected Council-monitored States, Fiscal Year 2004 

Californiaa

Kentucky MarylandbMassachusettsbMinnesotac

Joint 

Nonjoint JointNonjoint JointNonjoint Joint Nonjoint JointNonjoint

Electrician $13.50 $12.28 $9.31 $6.41 —- — — — $11.81 $11.06

Carpenter 15.16 14.11 8.05 8.31 — — — — 13.46 9.63

Plumber 13.82 12.85 12.14 7.54 — — — — 14.69 14.36

Pipe fitter 11.80 13.10 12.14 7.08 — — — — — —

Sheet metal worker 12.64 10.85 11.79 7.08 — — — — — —

Structural steel worker 17.24 — 13.56 7.08 — — — — — —

Bricklayer 11.22 11.40 10.59 9.82 — — — — — —

Roofer 11.90 10.96 10.12 7.08 — — — — — —

Painter 11.31 10.63 9.86 8.00 — — — — — —

Operating engineer 20.30 18.42 12.50 7.08 — — — — — —
Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken 

to Complete, and Wages for Construction 

Apprentices in Council-Monitored States 

Page 35 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

New YorkbOregondVirginiaeWashingtonfWisconsinb

Joint Non-joint Joint Non-joint Joint Non-joint Joint Non-joint Joint Non-joint

— — $9.81 — $9.50 $8.08 $11.64 $11.38 — —

— — 11.03 — 8.22 9.68 14.67 12.67 — —

— — 9.68 — 8.70 8.59 12.67 10.63 — —

— — 11.03 — 9.75 9.36 13.64 —- — —

— — 8.83 — 9.43 8.05 13.11 7.61 — —

— — 18.51 — 9.49 — 17.74 — — —

— — 13.35 — 8.02 9.47 12.62 — — —

— — 10.03 — — 7.44 13.28 — — —

— — 11.26 — — 10.95 11.50 8.33 — —

— — 17.43 — 10.99 — 15.95 15.37 — —

Source: Data were provided by selected council-monitored states. 

Note: Data includes wages for apprentices who began programs on October 1, 2003, through 

September 30, 2004. 

a

California reported no structural steel worker non-joint programs. 

b

Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin do not collect wage data. 

c

Minnesota reported data for electrician, carpenter, and plumber programs only. We told state 

directors they could do this in order to save resources and because these three fields represent over 

half of all apprentices in the construction trades. 

d

Oregon reported no non-joint apprenticeship programs are registered in the state. 

e

Virginia reported no roofer joint programs and no operating engineer non-joint programs. Also, no 

apprentices entered painter joint programs and structural steel worker non-joint programs that year. 

f

Washington reported no pipe fitter, structural steel worker, bricklayer, painter, and roofer non-joint 

programs as of September 30, 2004. 
Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken 

to Complete, and Wages for Construction 

Apprentices in Council-Monitored States 

Page 36 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Table 6: Mean Hourly Wage Rates for Apprentices Achieving Journey Status in Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs as 

Reported by Selected Council-monitored States, Fiscal Year 2004 

 Californiaa

 Kentucky Marylandb Massachusettsb Minnesotac

 Joint 

Nonjoint Joint Nonjoint Joint Nonjoint Joint Non-joint Joint Nonjoint 

Electrician $34.98 $30.35 $20.74 $12.81 — — — — $26.62 $25.31

Carpenter 32.45 32.48 16.57 15.00 — — — — 23.20 29.38

Plumber 31.80 30.91 24.28 14.00 — — — — 32.65 30.56

Pipe fitter 32.40 — 24.28 12.00 — — — — — —

Sheet metal worker 32.50 31.98 23.58 12.00 — — — — — —

Structural steel worker 31.35 —- 22.68 12.00 — — — — — —

Bricklayer 29.97 30.28 21.17 16.98 — — — — — —

Roofer 25.92 24.89 18.40 12.00 — — — — — —

Painter 30.98 29.08 17.20 16.00 — — — — — —

Operating engineer 34.34 —- 21.03 12.00 — — — — — —
Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken 

to Complete, and Wages for Construction 

Apprentices in Council-Monitored States 

Page 37 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

New Yorkb Oregond Virginiae Washingtonf Wisconsin 

Joint 

Nonjoint Joint Nonjoint JointNonjoint JointNonjoint JointNonjoint

— — $23.57 — $16.54 $13.34 $24.38 $28.46 — —

— — 20.06 — 11.39 10.73 24.46 22.04 — —

— — 23.38 — 17.15 14.47 26.68 26.52 — —

— — 25.46 — 17.38 13.53 27.07 — — —

— — 19.74 — 14.85 11.15 25.58 18.12 — —

— — 28.47 — 13.87 - 27.30 — — —

— — 26.70 — 14.75 18.62 25.23 — — —

— — 19.42 — — —- 22.14 — — —

— — 18.77 — — —- 20.44 18.51 — —

— — 22.67 — 18.73 — 25.52 25.63 — —

Source: Data were provided by selected council-monitored states. 

Note: Data include wages for apprentices who achieved journey status that year. 

a

California reported no structural steel worker non-joint programs. Also, no apprentices completed 

pipe fitter and operating engineer non-joint programs that year. 

b

Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin do not collect wage data. 

c

Minnesota reported data for electrician, carpenter, and plumber programs only. We told state 

directors they could do this in order to save resources and because these three fields represent over 

half of all apprentices in the construction trades. 

d

Oregon reported no non-joint apprenticeship programs are registered in the state. 

e

Virginia reported no roofer and painter joint programs, and no roofer, painter, and operating engineer 

non-joint programs, and no apprentices completed joint painter and non-joint structural steel worker 

programs as of September 30, 2004. 

f

Washington reported no pipe fitter, structural steel worker, bricklayer, and roofer non-joint programs 

as of September 30, 2004. 
Appendix III: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in FederallyMonitored States 

Page 38 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Q1. At the close of federal fiscal year (FFY) 2004 (September 30, 2004), what was the total number of registered apprentices 

in your state? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

4,792 3437 271 20,496 23

Q1a. At the close of FFY 2004, what was the total number of registered apprentices in construction trades in your state? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

3,057 2226 207 10,396 22

Q1b. At the close of FFY 2004, what was the total number of approved apprenticeship programs in construction trades in your state? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

169 84 22 844 23

Q2. During FFY 2004, how many full-time equivalency (FTE) apprenticeship training staff were employed by OATELS to monitor and

oversee apprenticeship programs in your state? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

3 2 0 6 22

Q3. Of the FTE apprenticeship training staff reported above, approximately what percentage of their time was spent in the field

monitoring and overseeing apprenticeship programs or providing technical assistance related to monitoring and oversight during 

FFY 2004? 

0 - 19% 20 - 39% 40 - 59% 60 - 79% 80 - 100% Don't know 

Number

of 

respondents

5 6 5 4 2 1 23

Q4. During FFY 2004, how many full-time equivalency (FTE) apprenticeship training representative, field, and other nonadministrative 

staff were employed by the state to monitor and oversee apprenticeship programs in your state? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

0 0 0 2 22

Appendix III: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in FederallyMonitored States 
Appendix III: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in FederallyMonitored States 

Page 39 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Q6. In your opinion, would the following updates or modifications improve Registered Apprenticeship Information System’s (RAIS)

usefulness to your state? 

 Yes No Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

a. Increasing 

timeliness of 

notifying state 

and regional 

offices of 

changes to 

RAIS 22 1 0 23

b. Increasing 

available 

coding options 

to explain why 

apprentices 

leave the 

programs 14 7 2 23

c. Allowing 

production of 

customized 

state or 

regional reports 

by sponsorship 

type 17 2 4 23

d. Allowing 

production of 

customized 

state or 

regional reports 

by industry 

type 18 1 4 23

e. Allowing 

production of 

customized 

state or 

regional reports 

by occupational 

type 17 2 3 22

f. Allowing 

production of 

customized 

state or 

regional reports 

by sex of 

apprentices 14 1 8 23
Appendix III: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in FederallyMonitored States 

Page 40 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

 Yes No Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

g. Allowing 

production of 

customized 

state or 

regional reports 

by race of 

apprentices 14 1 8 23

h. Simplifying 

instructions 

and procedures 

for inputting 

and updating 

data 16 6 1 23

i. Simplifying 

procedures 

required to 

produce 

reports 18 3 2 23

j. Increasing 

frequency of 

RAIS training 17 1 5 23

k. Improving 

quality of RAIS 

training 16 3 4 23

l. Other 9 0 2 11

Q8. Did your state use WIA Governor’s 15% State Set-Aside funds to support new and/or established apprenticeship programs in 

FFY 2004? 

Yes No Don't know 

Number

of 

respondents

3 15 5 23
Appendix III: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in FederallyMonitored States 

Page 41 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Q9. Were WIA State Set-Aside funds used to support new and/or established apprenticeship programs in your state in FFY 2004 

to do any of the following? 

Yes, new 

apprenticeship 

programs 

Yes, established 

apprenticeship 

programs No Don't know

Number 

of 

respondents 

a. To provide 

related 

instruction or 

other education 

that satisfied 

specific 

apprenticeship 

requirements 1 2 0 0 3 

b. To provide 

on-the-job 

training 0 0 1 0 1 

c. To 

disseminate 

information 

about 

apprenticeship 

programs 0 1 0 0 1 

d. To 

encourage 

entities to 

sponsor and 

register 

additional or 

new programs 1 0 1 0 2 

e. Other 1 0 0 0 1 

Q11. For which of the following reasons did your state not use WIA Set-Aside Funds to support apprenticeship programs in FFY 2004? 

 Yes No Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

a. Decisionmakers gave 

priority to other 

programs. 11 0 6 17

b. Decisionmakers did not 

believe funds 

could be used 

to support new 

apprenticeship 

programs. 7 2 8 17
Appendix III: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in FederallyMonitored States 

Page 42 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

 Yes No Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

c. Decisionmakers did not 

believe funds 

could be used 

to support 

established 

apprenticeship 

programs. 7 2 7 16

d. Decisionmakers did not 

believe funds 

could be used 

to provide 

related 

instruction or 

other education 

that satisfied 

specific 

apprenticeship 

requirements. 6 2 9 17

e. Decisionmakers did not 

believe funds 

could be used 

to provide onthe-job training. 6 3 8 17

f. Decisionmakers did not 

believe funds 

could be used 

to disseminate 

information 

about 

apprenticeship 

programs. 5 2 10 17

g. Decisionmakers did not 

believe funds 

could be used 

to encourage 

the recruitment 

of entities to 

sponsor and 

register new 

programs. 6 1 10 17
Appendix III: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in FederallyMonitored States 

Page 43 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

 Yes No Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

h. Decisionmakers did not 

establish 

linkages 

between the 

state 

apprenticeship 

unit and unit(s) 

responsible for 

WIA. 11 2 4 17

i. Other 8 0 3 11

Q13. Were WIA funding sources other than State Set-Aside Funds used in your state to support new and/or established apprenticeship 

programs in FFY 2004? 

Yes No Don't know 

Number

of 

respondents

4 12 6 22

Q14. Other than State Set-Aside Funds, which of the following WIA funding sources were used to support new and/or established 

apprenticeship programs in FFY 2004? 

Yes, new 

programs 

Yes, 

established 

programs No Don't know

Number 

of 

respondents 

a. Adult Funds 1 1 1 1 4 

b. Dislocated 

Worker Funds 0 1 1 2 4 

c. Youth Funds 0 0 2 2 4 

d. Other 0 2 0 1 3 

Q16. Did your state establish linkages between WIA state unit and the state apprenticeship unit in FFY 2004 for any of the following 

purposes? 

 Yes No Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

a. Shared 

decision 

making 0 18 4 22

b. Shared 

information 

gathering 4 14 4 22
Appendix III: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in FederallyMonitored States 

Page 44 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

 Yes No Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

c. Shared 

information 

dissemination, 

including 

presentations 7 11 4 22

d. Shared use 

of educational 

programs that 

satisfy specific 

apprenticeship 

requirements 2 15 5 22

e. Shared grant 

development 

activities 4 13 6 23

f. Other 7 2 4 13

Q19. How often does your unit conduct formalized Quality Reviews of individual apprenticeship programs that address on-the-job 

training, related instruction, and/or program operations in your state? 

Less 

frequently 

than every 

three years 

Once every 

three years 

Once every 

two years Once a year Twice a year

More than 

twice a year Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

7 2 6 3 0 3 1 22

Q21. Approximately how many Quality Reviews did your unit conduct in FFY 2004? ( Click in the box and then enter up to a 4-digit 

whole number only. ) 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

17 10 0 67 22

Q22. To what extent, if at all, did your state find the FFY 2004 Quality Reviews useful for the following purposes? 

Very great 

extent Great extent Moderate extent

Some 

extent

Little or no extent ( Please 

specify in Question 24. ) 

Don't 

know

Number

of 

respondents

a. Making 

informed 

decisions about 

the 

administration 

and operation 

of 

apprenticeship 

programs 2 8 5 5 1 1 22
Appendix III: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in FederallyMonitored States 

Page 45 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Very great 

extent Great extent Moderate extent

Some 

extent

Little or no extent ( Please 

specify in Question 24. ) 

Don't 

know

Number

of 

respondents

b. Evaluating 

the strengths 

and 

weaknesses of 

apprenticeship 

programs in 

your state 4 8 4 3 2 1 22

c. Assessing 

how well the 

programs 

comply with 

federal 

regulations 3 10 3 2 3 1 22

d. Completing 

reports about 

your state's 

apprenticeship 

program 1 7 5 3 4 2 22

e. Other 1 3 0 2 3 4 13

Q26. How often does your unit conduct formalized Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Reviews of individual apprenticeship 

programs? 

Less 

frequently 

than every 

three years 

Once every 

three years 

Once every 

two years Once a year Twice a year

More than 

twice a year Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

8 3 6 2 0 3 1 23

Q28. Approximately how many EEO Reviews did your unit conduct in FFY 2004? ( Click in the box and then enter up to a 4-digit whole 

number only. ) 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

10 8 0 35 23
Appendix III: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in FederallyMonitored States 

Page 46 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Q29. To what extent, if at all, did your state find the FFY 2004 EEO Reviews useful for the following purposes? 

Very great 

extent Great extent 

Moderate 

extent Some extent

Little or no 

extent ( Please 

specify in 

Question 31. ) Don't know

Number

of 

respondent

s

a. Making 

informed 

decisions about 

the 

administration 

and operation 

of 

apprenticeship 

programs in 

your state 4 9 3 3 2 1 22

b. Evaluating 

the strengths 

and 

weaknesses of 

apprenticeship 

programs in 

your state 6 10 2 2 1 1 22

c. Assessing 

how well the 

programs 

comply with 

federal 

regulations 7 8 4 2 0 1 22

d. Completing 

reports about 

the state's 

apprenticeship 

programs 1 8 7 2 2 2 22

e. Other 3 0 0 1 2 5 11

Q33. Did your state have procedures or policies for recording complaints filed in FFY 2004 that were elevated to the level of the state 

or regional OATELS office? 

Yes No Don't know 

Number

of 

respondents

18 3 1 22

Q34a1. In your state, how many total complaints were referred to state officials in FFY 2004? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

2 1 0 10 18
Appendix III: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in FederallyMonitored States 

Page 47 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Q34a2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

actual 12 19 

Check here if 

estimate 7 19 

Check here if 

do not know or 

cannot 

estimate 0 19 

Q34b1. How many complaints concerned termination in FFY 2004? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

1 0 0 8 18

Q34b2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

actual 12 18 

Check here if 

estimate 6 18 

Check here if 

do not know or 

cannot 

estimate 0 18 

Q34c1. How many complaints concerned discrimination in FFY 2004? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

0 0 0 5 18

Q34c2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

actual 13 18 
Appendix III: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in FederallyMonitored States 

Page 48 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

estimate 5 18 

Check here if 

do not know or 

cannot 

estimate 0 18 

Q34d1. How many complaints concerned wages in FFY 2004? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

0 0 0 2 18

Q34d2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

actual 13 18 

Check here if 

estimate 5 18 

Check here if 

do not know or 

cannot 

estimate 0 18 

Q34e1. How many complaints concerned related instruction in FFY 2004? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

0 0 0 3 18

Q34e2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

actual 13 18 

Check here if 

estimate 5 18 
Appendix III: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in FederallyMonitored States 

Page 49 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

do not know or 

cannot 

estimate 0 18 

Q34f1. How many complaints concerned on-the-job training in FFY 2004? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

0 0 0 4 20

Q34f2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

actual 12 16 

Check here if 

estimate 4 16 

Check here if 

do not know or 

cannot 

estimate 0 16 

Q34g1. How many complaints concerned other issues in FFY 2004? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

1 0 0 5 18

Q34g2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

actual 13 18 

Check here if 

estimate 5 18 

Check here if 

do not know or 

cannot 

estimate 0 18 
Appendix III: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in FederallyMonitored States 

Page 50 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Q36. Which of the following were sources of data used to answer the prior questions about complaints regarding apprenticeship 

programs in FFY 2004? 

 Yes No Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

Electronic 

statewide 

system 3 12 1 16

Centralized 

listing, log, or 

other paper 

compilation 6 10 1 17

Manual search 

of files 7 8 0 15

Other 3 2 1 6
Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in CouncilMonitored States 

Page 51 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Q2. At the close of your state’s FY 2004, what was the total number of registered apprentices in your state? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

8,949 4748 689 72,920 27

Q2a. At the close of your state’s FY 2004, what was the total number of registered apprentices in construction trades in your state? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

6,287 4052 323 52,277 26

Q2b. At the close of your state’s FY 2004, what was the total number of approved apprenticeship programs in construction trades in 

your state? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

308 225 28 1,320 26

Q3. During state FY 2004, how many full-time equivalency (FTE) apprenticeship training staff were employed by your apprentice unit 

to monitor and oversee apprenticeship programs in your state? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

7 4 0 32 27

Q4. Of the FTE apprenticeship training staff reported above, approximately what percentage of their time was spent in the field

monitoring and overseeing apprenticeship or providing technical assistance related to monitoring or oversight during state FY2004? 

0 - 19% 20 - 39% 40 - 59% 60 - 79% 80 - 100% Don't know 

Number

of 

respondents

4 5 7 6 5 0 27

Q5. Do you have a BAT agency in your state? 

Yes No Don't know 

Number

of 

respondents

20 7 0 27

Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in CouncilMonitored States 
Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in CouncilMonitored States 

Page 52 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Q6. During state FY 2004, how many full-time equivalency (FTE) apprenticeship training staff were employed by the BAT agency in 

your state to monitor and oversee apprenticeship programs in your state? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

2 1 0 10 19

Q8. How often does your OATELS conduct SAC 29/29 Review (Review of Labor Standards for Registration of Apprenticeship 

Programs) in your state? 

Less 

frequently 

than every 

three years 

Once every 

three years 

Once every 

two years Once a year Twice a year

More than 

twice a year Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

12 5 3 2 0 0 5 27

Q10. To what extent did your state find OATELS’ most recent SAC 29/29 Review (Review of Labor Standards for Registration of 

Apprenticeship Programs) useful for the following purposes in your state? 

Very great 

extent Great extent 

Moderate 

extent Some extent

Little or no 

extent Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

a. Making 

informed 

decisions about 

the 

administration 

and operation 

of 

apprenticeship 

programs 2 3 5 4 6 7 27

b. Evaluating 

the strengths 

and 

weaknesses of 

apprenticeship 

programs in 

your state 2 4 2 5 7 7 27

c. Assessing 

how well the 

programs 

comply with 

federal 

regulations 3 6 2 3 6 7 27

d. Completing 

reports about 

your state's 

apprenticeship 

program 1 1 3 6 8 8 27

e. Other 2 0 1 1 1 9 14
Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in CouncilMonitored States 

Page 53 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Q15. How often does OATELS conduct SAC 29/30 Review (Review of Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training) 

in your state? 

Less 

frequently 

than every 

three years 

Once every 

three years 

Once every 

two years Once a year Twice a year

More than 

twice a year Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

12 5 3 2 0 0 5 27

Q17. To what extent, if at all, did your state find OATELS’ most recent SAC 29/30 Review (Equal Employment Opportunity in 

Apprenticeship and Training) useful for the following purposes? 

Very great 

extent Great extent 

Moderate 

extent Some extent

Little or no 

extent Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

a. Making 

informed 

decisions about 

the 

administration 

and operation 

of 

apprenticeship 

programs 2 2 6 3 5 9 27

b. Evaluating 

the strengths 

and 

weaknesses of 

apprenticeship 

programs in 

your state 1 3 5 4 5 9 27

c. Assessing 

how well the 

programs 

comply with 

federal 

regulations 2 6 4 2 4 9 27

d. Completing 

reports about 

your state's 

apprenticeship 

program 1 0 5 6 5 10 27

e. Other 1 0 0 1 2 4 8

Q21. Does your state presently use OATELS’ Registered Apprenticeship Information System (RAIS) to register apprentices and to 

track apprentice and program information? 

Yes No 

Number 

of 

respondents 

6 21 27 
Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in CouncilMonitored States 

Page 54 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Q23. Does you state plan or intend to use RAIS to register apprentices and track apprenticeship and program information in the 

future ? 

Yes No Don't know 

Number

of 

respondents

7 12 5 24

Q26. Did your state use the WIA Governor’s 15% State Set-Aside funds to support new and/or established apprenticeship programs in 

state FY 2004? 

Yes No Don't know 

Number

of 

respondents

7 20 0 27

Q27. Were WIA State Set-Aside funds used to support new and/or established apprenticeship programs in your state in state FY 2004 

to do any of the following? 

Yes, new 

apprenticeship 

programs 

Yes, established 

apprenticeship 

programs No Don't know

Number 

of 

respondents 

a. To provide 

related 

instruction or 

other education 

that satisfied 

specific 

apprenticeship 

requirements 4 1 2 0 7 

b. To provide 

on-the-job 

training 2 1 3 0 6 

c. To 

disseminate 

information 

about 

apprenticeship 

programs 4 0 3 0 7 

d. To encourage 

entities to 

sponsor and 

register 

additional or 

new programs 2 1 3 0 6 

e. Other 2 2 1 0 5 
Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in CouncilMonitored States 

Page 55 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Q29. For which of the following reasons did your state not use WIA Set-Aside Funds to support apprenticeship programs in state FY 

2004? 

 Yes No Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

a. Decisionmakers gave 

priority to other 

programs. 10 5 7 22

b. Decisionmakers did not 

believe funds 

could be used 

to support new 

apprenticeship 

programs. 8 4 10 22

c. Decisionmakers did not 

believe funds 

could be used 

to support 

established 

apprenticeship 

programs. 8 4 10 22

d. Decisionmakers did not 

believe funds 

could be used 

to provide 

related 

instruction or 

other education 

that satisfied 

specific 

apprenticeship 

requirements. 5 5 12 22

e. Decisionmakers did not 

believe funds 

could be used 

to provide onthe-job training. 4 7 11 22

f. Decisionmakers did not 

believe funds 

could be used 

to disseminate 

information 

about 

apprenticeship 

programs. 3 6 13 22
Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in CouncilMonitored States 

Page 56 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

 Yes No Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

g. Decisionmakers did not 

believe funds 

could be used 

to encourage 

the recruitment 

of entities to 

sponsor and 

register new 

programs. 5 6 11 22

h. Decisionmakers did not 

establish 

linkages 

between the 

state 

apprenticeship 

unit and unit(s) 

responsible for 

WIA. 9 9 5 23

i. Other 2 2 3 7

Q31. Were WIA funding sources other than State Set-Aside Funds used in your state to support new and/or established apprenticeship 

programs in state FY 2004? 

Yes No Don't know 

Number

of 

respondents

7 17 3 27

Q32. Other than State Set-Aside Funds, which of the following WIA funding sources were used to support new and/or established 

apprenticeship programs in state FY 2004? 

Yes, new 

programs 

Yes, 

established 

programs No Don't know

Number 

of 

respondents 

a. Adult Funds 1 4 0 1 6 

b. Dislocated 

Worker Funds 0 5 1 1 7 

c. Youth Funds 2 1 2 1 6 

d. Other 0 1 1 1 3 
Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in CouncilMonitored States 

Page 57 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Q34. Did your state establish linkages between WIA and the state apprenticeship unit in state FY 2004 for any of the following 

purposes? 

 Yes No Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

a. Shared 

decision 

making 7 17 2 26

b. Shared 

information 

gathering 15 10 1 26

c. Shared 

information 

dissemination, 

including 

presentations 14 13 0 27

d. Shared use 

of educational 

programs that 

satisfy specific 

apprenticeship 

requirements 6 17 3 26

e. Shared grant 

development 

activities 5 18 3 26

f. Other 1 4 1 6

Q37. Did your state have a mechanism for conducting formalized reviews of apprenticeship programs that address on-the-job training, 

related instruction, and/or program operations in state FY 2004? 

Yes No Don't know 

Number

of 

respondents

25 0 0 25

Q38. Which of the following components -- on-the-job training, related instruction, and/or program operations -- were included in these 

reviews? 

 Yes No Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

a. Currency of onthe-job training 

with acceptable 

industry practice 22 3 0 25

b. Relative 

continuity of 

employment for 

on-the-job training 25 0 0 25
Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in CouncilMonitored States 

Page 58 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

 Yes No Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

c. Provision of onthe-job training in 

all aspects of 

trades 25 0 0 25

d. Consistency 

with standards for 

related 

instructions 25 0 0 25

e. Currency of 

related instruction 

with acceptable 

industry practice 21 3 1 25

f. Appropriateness 

of wages to actual 

hours of related 

instruction and 

on-the-job training 24 1 0 25

g. Establishment 

of criteria or 

guidelines for 

instructors 14 11 0 25

h. Completion 

rates 23 2 0 25

i. Cancellation 

rates 22 2 1 25

j. Relative amount 

of time taken by 

apprentices to 

complete 

programs relative 

to time required 

for program 18 7 0 25

k. Maintenance of 

required records 25 0 0 25

l. Other 1 1 1 3

Q40. How often does your state conduct formalized reviews of individual apprenticeship programs that address on-the-job training, 

related instruction, and/or program operations? 

Less 

frequently 

than every 

three years 

Once every 

three years 

Once every 

two years Once a year Twice a year

More than 

twice a year Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

4 1 10 7 2 3 0 27
Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in CouncilMonitored States 

Page 59 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Q42. Does your state have a mechanism for conducting formalized Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) reviews of individual 

apprenticeship programs? 

Yes No Don't know 

Number

of 

respondents

24 3 0 27

Q43. How often does your state conduct formalized Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) reviews of individual apprenticeship 

programs? 

Less 

frequently 

than every 

three years 

Once every 

three years 

Once every 

two years Once a year Twice a year

More than 

twice a year Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

2 3 8 11 0 0 0 24

Q45. Did your state have procedures or policies for recording complaints filed in state FY 2004 that were elevated to the level of state 

apprenticeship agencies? 

Yes No Don't know 

Number

of 

respondents

22 3 1 26

Q46a1. In your state, how many total complaints were referred to state officials in state FY 2004? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

46 1 0 699 20

Q46a2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

actual 15 22 

Check here if 

estimate 5 22 

Check here if 

do not know or 

cannot 

estimate 2 22 
Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in CouncilMonitored States 

Page 60 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Q46b1. How many complaints concerned termination in state FY 2004? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

10 1 0 100 20

Q46b2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

actual 16 22 

Check here if 

estimate 3 22 

Check here if 

do not know or 

cannot 

estimate 3 22 

Q46c1. How many complaints concerned discrimination in state FY 2004? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

0 0 0 2 20

Q46c2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

actual 17 21 

Check here if 

estimate 1 21 

Check here if 

do not know or 

cannot 

estimate 3 21 

Q46d1. How many complaints concerned wages in state FY 2004? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

2 0 0 25 20
Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in CouncilMonitored States 

Page 61 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Q46d2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

actual 15 22 

Check here if 

estimate 4 22 

Check here if 

do not know or 

cannot 

estimate 3 22 

Q46e1. How many complaints concerned related instruction in state FY 2004? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

1 0 0 5 21

Q46e2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

actual 16 21 

Check here if 

estimate 4 21 

Check here if 

do not know or 

cannot 

estimate 1 21 

Q46f1. How many complaints concerned on-the-job training in state FY 2004? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

1 0 0 9 23

Q46f2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

actual 17 22 
Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of 

Directors of Apprenticeships in CouncilMonitored States 

Page 62 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

estimate 4 22 

Check here if 

do not know or 

cannot 

estimate 1 22 

Q46g1. How many complaints concerned other issues in state FY 2004? 

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Number

of 

respondents

37 0 0 664 19

Q46g2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate 

 Count 

Number 

of 

respondents 

Check here if 

actual 16 20 

Check here if 

estimate 2 20 

Check here if 

do not know or 

cannot 

estimate 2 20 

Q48. Which of the following were sources of data used to answer the prior questions about complaints regarding apprenticeship 

programs in the construction trade in state FY 2004? 

 Yes No Don't know

Number

of 

respondents

a. Electronic 

statewide 

system 5 6 1 12

b. Centralized 

listing, log, or 

other paper 

compilation 8 5 1 14

c. Manual 

search of files 11 4 1 16

d. Other 3 1 0 4
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor 

Page 63 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor 

Page 64 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 65 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

Sigurd R. Nilsen (202) 512-7215 

Patrick DiBattista, Assistant Director, Scott Heacock, Linda W. Stokes, and 

Kathleen D. White managed all aspects of the assignment. The following 

individuals made significant contributions to this report: 

Susan Bernstein, Jessica Botsford, Richard Burkard, Cathy Hurley, and 

Jean McSween. 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Page 66 GAO-05-886 Registered Apprenticeship Programs 

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

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

Washington, D.C.: June 2005. 

Public Community Colleges and Technical Schools: Most Schools Use 

Both Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development. 

GAO-05-4. Washington, D.C.: October 2004. 

Registered Apprenticeships: Labor Could Do More to Expand to Other 

Occupations. GAO-01-940. Washington, D.C.: September 2001. 

Youth Training. PEMD-94-32R. Washington, D.C.: September 1994. 

Apprenticeship Training: Administration, Use, and Equal Opportunity.

HRD-92-43. Washington, D.C.: March 1992. 

Related GAO Products 

(130394) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

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

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER