Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

April 2004 NATIONAL 

EMERGENCY 

GRANTS 

Labor Is Instituting 

Changes to Improve 

Award Process, but 

Further Actions Are 

Required to Expedite 

Grant Awards and 

Improve Data 

GAO-04-496 

May 13, 2004 – Report reprinted to correct information in figure 7. 

May 27, 2004 – Report reprinted to correct body of report. 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-496.

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-04-496, a report to 

congressional requesters 

April 2004

NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANTS

Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve 

Award Process, but Further Actions Are 

Required to Expedite Grant Awards and 

Improve Data 

Labor does not award most national emergency grants in a timely manner, 

and as a result, services to workers have been delayed, interrupted, or 

denied. Labor’s goal is to make award decisions within 30 calendar days of 

receiving a complete application. However, nearly 90 percent of regular 

grants took longer than 30 days to award (see figure). On average, Labor 

took 92 days to award regular grants. For grants disbursed in more than one 

payment, Labor took on average 83 days to award the additional increments. 

Twenty-five of 38 states responding to our survey reported that because of 

grant award delays, local areas had to delay or deny services to workers. 

Labor is taking some steps, such as implementing an electronic system to 

better manage its award process and incorporating its 30-day goal in new 

guidelines, that may improve the timeliness of grant awards. However, some 

weaknesses still remain in Labor’s planned changes that could prevent Labor 

from accurately assessing how long it takes to make grant awards and 

incremental payments. For example, Labor plans to stop counting the days 

elapsed if it finds problems with an application, and Labor’s proposed 

guidelines do not establish a timeliness goal for incremental payments. 

Little is known on a national level about how national emergency grant 

funds are used because of weaknesses in two primary data sources. Because 

of the lack of clear guidance, states report inconsistent data in progress 

reports, and some states have not reported data on national emergency 

grants to a national database covering Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 

programs. To address these problems, Labor is implementing a standardized 

electronic form for grantees to submit progress reports, issued guidance 

requiring states to submit data on national emergency grant participants to 

the national WIA database, and checked states’ latest submissions to identify 

if data were missing. However, Labor’s guidance still is not sufficiently clear 

to ensure that states will report data in progress reports consistently, and 

Labor does not have specific plans to continue checking states’ data 

submissions to ensure that data are complete. 

Percentage of Regular Grants Awarded during Program Years 2000-2002 within Specified 

Time Frames 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor grant awards during program years 2000 through 2002.

Percentage of regular grants

Number of days from receiving 

application to award

11

31

12

46

0

10

20

30

40

50

91 days 

or longer

61-90

days

31-60

days

30 days

or fewer

The Department of Labor (Labor) 

awards national emergency grants 

to states and local areas to provide 

assistance to workers who lose 

their jobs because of major 

economic dislocations or disasters. 

Most grants awarded are regular 

grants to assist workers affected by 

plant closings or mass layoffs. 

Questions have been raised about 

whether grant funds are getting to 

states and local areas quickly 

enough. GAO was asked to assess 

the effectiveness of the process for 

awarding national emergency 

grants, whether Labor is planning 

changes that will improve the grant 

award process, and what is known 

about how grant funds are used. 

We are recommending that Labor 

set goals for awarding grants and 

incremental payments that include 

the entire award process, and track 

how long it takes for all steps of the 

process. Finally, Labor should 

clarify guidance to states on 

submitting national emergency 

grant data in progress reports and 

ensure that grantees submit data to 

the national participant database. 

In its comments, Labor disagreed 

with our conclusions and 

methodology. We conducted a 

complete review of Labor’s grant 

award process for a 3-year period, 

surveyed states, and assessed 

current and proposed policies to 

reach our conclusions. While Labor 

is making changes to the grant 

award process, we identified 

additional actions needed. 
Page i GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 5

Delays in Grant Awards Hampered Services to Dislocated Workers 12

Labor Has Taken Steps to Improve the Grant Award Process, but 

Additional Actions are Needed 20

Little Is Known about How Grant Funds Are Used because of 

Weaknesses in Data Collection 23

Conclusions 28

Recommendations for Executive Action 28

Agency Comments 29

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 32 

Appendix II Summary of Funds Awarded for Regular, Disaster, 

|and Dual Enrollment Grants for Program Years 2000–

2002 36 

Appendix III Average Number of Days Regular Grants Were 

Awarded, by State 38 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Labor 40 

Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 43 

GAO Contacts 43

Staff Acknowledgments 43

Related GAO Products 44 

Tables 

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

Application Was Received during Program Years 2000-2002 15

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

Table 2: Information Contained in Progress Reports from 13 States 24

Table 3: Comparison of State’s PY2001 WIASRD National 

Emergency Grant Participant Records with Grants 

Received in PY2000 26

Table 4: Number of National Emergency Grants Awarded and Used 

in GAO Analysis 32

Figures 

Figure 1: Funding Reserved from the Dislocated Worker Allotment 

for the Secretary of Labor 7

Figure 2: Distribution of National Emergency Grant Funds for 

Regular, Disaster, and Dual Enrollment Grants from July 

1, 2000, to June 30, 2003 9

Figure 3: Percentage of Grants Awarded and Funds Awarded for 

Program Years 2000-2002, by Type of Grant 10

Figure 4: Difference between How GAO and Labor Track the Grant 

Award Process 13

Figure 5: Percentage of Regular Grants Awarded during Program 

Years 2000-2002 within Specified Time Frames 14

Figure 6: Percentage of Regular Grant Applications and Awards by 

Quarter during Program Years 2000-2002 16

Figure 7: Percentage of Regular Grant Applications and Awards by 

Month during Program Years 2000-2002 17

Figure 8: Percentage of Regular Grant Incremental Payments 

Awarded within Specified Time Frames 18

Figure 9: Average Number of Days to Award Regular Grants to 

States with at Least Five Grants during Program Years 

2000-2002 19

Figure 10: New Process for Awarding National Emergency Grants 

and Number of Days Allowed in Each Step 22

Figure 11: 39 States Surveyed That Were Awarded a Regular 

National Emergency Grant during Program Years 2000 

through 2002 33
Page iii GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

Abbreviations 

JTPA Job Training Partnership Act 

OIG Department of Labor Office of Inspector General

WIA Workforce Investment Act

WIASRD Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

April 16, 2004 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

 and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

 and Pensions 

United States Senate 

Between 2000 and 2002, almost 60,000 mass layoffs of 50 or more workers 

occurred, resulting in nearly 7 million workers losing their jobs. The 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 authorizes the Department of 

Labor (Labor) to award national emergency grants to states and local 

areas to provide employment and training assistance to workers whose 

jobs were lost because of major economic dislocations, such as plant 

closures, or major disasters, such as floods and hurricanes. Grantees, 

typically the state or local agency responsible for administering WIA, apply 

for national emergency grants when their dislocated worker formula funds 

are insufficient to assist the affected workers. Between July 1, 2000, and 

June 30, 2003, Labor awarded about $600 million in national emergency 

grants. The majority of these funds were used for grants to provide 

assistance, called regular grants, to workers who lost their jobs because of 

layoffs or plant closures. National emergency grants can be funded in 

whole or in increments. For grants that are funded incrementally, grantees 

are required to submit supplemental information to request additional 

payments. Although national emergency grants are intended to be a timely 

response to unexpected events, questions arose during congressional 

hearings in April 2003 about whether national emergency grant funds were 

getting to states and local areas quickly enough to help workers when they 

needed them the most. 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

In November 2003, we reported that services to dislocated workers were 

being affected because of delays in Labor’s awarding of national 

emergency grants.1

 We also found that Labor was initiating actions to 

improve the grant award process. Because of your continued interest in 

Labor’s process for awarding national emergency grants, you asked us to 

determine (1) the effectiveness of the overall process for awarding 

national emergency grant funds, (2) whether the changes being 

implemented by Labor will improve the grant award process, and (3) what 

is known about how grant funds are being used. To respond to these 

questions, we interviewed Labor officials at both headquarters and 

regional offices, reviewed Labor files for all grants awarded during 

program years 2000 through 2002, and surveyed officials in the 39 states 

that had received at least one regular national emergency grant during that 

period.2

 We received responses from 38 states. We also reviewed Labor’s 

two data sources that contain information on use of national emergency 

grants. We conducted our work from March 2003 to March 2004 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards (see 

app. I for a detailed discussion of our scope and methodology). 

Labor’s grant process is not as effective as it could be because most grants 

are not awarded in a timely manner, and as a result, services to workers 

have been delayed, interrupted, or denied. Labor’s goal is to make award 

decisions about national emergency grants within 30 calendar days of 

receiving a complete application. However, nearly 90 percent of the 

regular grants took longer than 30 days to award. On average, Labor took 

92 days, from the receipt of the application, to send award letters for 

regular grants. The amount of time it took for grant awards was also tied 

to the time of year: Labor awarded 60 percent of the regular grants during 

the last 3 months of their program year, and most of these were made in 

the final month. In addition, for regular grants disbursed in more than one 

payment, it took an average of 83 days from the time additional funds were 

requested to the time the incremental payment was made. Because of the 

lag in grant awards, some problems arose in providing services. Twenty-

 1

U.S. General Accounting Office, National Emergency Grants: Services to Dislocated 

Workers Hampered by Delays in Grant Awards, but Labor Is Initiating Actions to 

Improve Grant Award Process, GAO-04-222 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2003). 

2

A program year begins on July 1 of a year and ends on June 30 of the following year. A 

program year is designated by the year in which it begins. Thus, program year 2002 began 

on July 1, 2002, and ended on June 30, 2003. 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

five of the 38 states responding to our survey reported that local areas had 

to deny or delay services to laid-off workers because of delays in receiving 

funds. For example, delays in receiving funds caused a local area in 

Nevada to cancel training for over 300 workers, and a local area in 

Massachusetts to place workers on waiting lists for 3 to 4 months before 

receiving training. 

Labor is taking steps that may improve the timeliness with which grants 

are awarded, but additional actions are needed to better manage the grant 

award process. Labor plans to implement an electronic system by 

July 1, 2004, that will enable states to apply for grants online and will 

automatically check applications for missing or inconsistent information. 

The electronic system is also designed to help Labor manage its grant 

award process by automatically assigning applications to staff for review 

and tracking the date they complete their review. In addition, in guidance 

issued in January 2004, Labor clarified its application requirements. 

Finally, Labor plans to issue guidelines that document a goal of making 

award decisions within 30 business days. However, some weaknesses still 

remain in Labor’s planned changes that could prevent Labor from 

accurately assessing how long it takes to make grant awards and 

incremental payments. In assessing its progress toward meeting its 

timeliness goal, Labor plans to stop counting the days elapsed toward its 

30-day goal if it finds problems with an application. In addition, Labor’s 

timeliness goal only includes the days up to an award decision, leaving the 

agency unable to determine if delays occur in steps of the process leading 

up to issuance of the award letter. Furthermore, the proposed guidelines 

do not specify a goal for how long Labor should take to make incremental 

payments. 

Little is known on a national level about how national emergency grant 

funds are used because of weaknesses in two primary data sources, and 

although Labor is taking some steps to improve the data collected, these 

steps may not go far enough to ensure the data’s reliability. Largely 

because of a lack of clear guidance, data in national emergency grant 

progress reports that states are required to submit to Labor are 

inconsistent, and data in a national participant database covering 

Workforce Investment Act programs are incomplete and unverified. Labor 

has not issued guidance under the Workforce Investment Act on 

submitting national emergency grant progress reports, and as a result, not 

all states reported the same data elements. For example, five states from 

which we received sample reports included the number of participants 

enrolled in intensive services, such as case management, while eight did 

not. Regarding Labor’s national participant database, the guidance has not 
Page 4 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

been clear about whether states are required to submit data on national 

emergency grants, and Labor has not ensured the completeness and 

accuracy of data that are submitted. To address these weaknesses, Labor 

is making several improvements to the data sources. To improve the 

consistency of progress reports, Labor is planning to implement by 

July 1, 2004, a standardized electronic form on which states will be 

required to submit their reports. However, Labor has not issued detailed 

guidance to ensure that states will interpret data elements, such as the 

number of participants who have entered employment, consistently. To 

improve the national participant database, Labor is planning to implement 

a data validation program to ensure the accuracy of state-reported data on 

national emergency grant participants, has issued guidance to clarify the 

requirement that national emergency grant data must be submitted, and 

checked states’ latest submissions to identify whether their data on 

national emergency grants were complete. However, Labor does not 

currently have specific plans to continue checking states’ submissions to 

ensure completeness of the data. 

In order to better manage the national emergency grant award process, we 

are recommending that Labor set goals for awarding grants, as well as for 

providing incremental payments, that include the entire process from 

when a grant application is received to the time that the grant award is 

issued. In addition, we are recommending that Labor continuously track 

how long it takes for all components of the grant award process. Finally, 

to ensure that reported information on national emergency grants is 

reliable, we are recommending that Labor clarify guidance to states on 

submitting national emergency grant data in progress reports and ensure 

that grantees submit data to the national participant database. In its 

comments, Labor took issue with the report’s methodology, said it believes 

that the report makes assertions not supported by empirical evidence, and 

disagreed with our conclusions. Labor also listed reforms that are under 

way or have been implemented, including business process mapping, an 

electronic application tool, policy guidance, regional forums, and technical 

assistance to states. We disagree with Labor’s characterization. Our 

analysis looked at the complete application process from a grantee’s 

perspective. We reviewed files for every regular grant that was awarded 

between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003, for which complete information 

was available and compared the date that Labor received the application 

to the date Labor issued an award letter to the grantee. In addition, our 

conclusions about the weaknesses in the improvements being undertaken 

in the grant award process are based upon Labor’s proposed guidelines 

and discussions with Labor officials. Finally, our report acknowledges the 

efforts listed by Labor in its comments. 
Page 5 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

WIA specifies separate funding streams for each of the act’s main client 

groups—adults, youths, and dislocated workers. A dislocated worker is an 

individual who (1) has been terminated or laid off, or who has received a 

notice of termination or layoff, from employment; is eligible for or has 

exhausted entitlement to unemployment insurance; or who is not eligible 

for unemployment insurance but has been employed for a sufficient 

duration to demonstrate attachment to the workforce and who is unlikely 

to return to his or her previous industry or occupation; (2) has been 

terminated or laid off, or who has received a notice of termination or 

layoff, from employment as a result of any permanent plant closure of, or 

substantial layoff at, a plant, facility, or enterprise; (3) was self-employed 

but is unemployed as a result of general economic conditions in the 

community in which the individual resides or because of natural disasters; 

or (4) is a displaced homemaker.3

Under WIA, dislocated workers can receive three levels of service—core, 

intensive, and training. Core services include job search and placement 

assistance, the provision of labor market information, and preliminary 

assessment of skills and needs. These services are available to anyone 

seeking such assistance, whether or not that person is a dislocated 

worker. Intensive services are provided to dislocated workers needing 

additional services to find a job. Intensive services include comprehensive 

assessments, development of an individual employment plan, case 

management, and short-term prevocational services.4

 Dislocated workers 

can also receive training services, including occupational skills training, 

on-the-job training, skill upgrading, and entrepreneurial training. 

The Secretary of Labor retains 20 percent of dislocated worker funds in a 

national reserve account to be used for national emergency grants, 

demonstrations, and technical assistance and allots the remaining funds to 

each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico according 

to a specific formula. In a previous report, GAO identified several issues 

with the formula to allocate dislocated worker funds that limit Labor’s 

 3

A displaced homemaker is an individual who has been providing unpaid services to family 

members in the home and who (1) has been dependent on the income of another family 

member but is no longer supported by that income and (2) is unemployed or 

underemployed and is experiencing difficulty in obtaining or upgrading employment. 

4

Short-term prevocational services prepare individuals for employment or training and 

include development of learning skills, communication skills, interviewing skills, 

punctuality, personal maintenance, and professional conduct. 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

ability to allocate funds to states according to their need.5 For example, 

one problem we identified is that the formula allocates funds based on 

factors, such as the number of long-term unemployed in each state, that 

are not clearly aligned with the program’s target population. During 

program years 2000-2002, Labor was allotted about $4.7 billion for 

dislocated worker activities. For program year 2003, approximately 

$1.4 billion was allotted for dislocated worker activities, of which about 

$272 million was reserved by the Secretary of Labor. Of the amount 

reserved by the Secretary in any program year, not more than 10 percent 

can be used for demonstrations and pilot projects relating to the 

employment and training needs of dislocated workers. Such projects can 

include those that promote self-employment, promote job creation, and 

avert dislocations. In addition, not more than 5 percent can be used for 

technical assistance to states that do not meet performance measures 

established for dislocated worker activities. At least 85 percent of the 

Secretary’s 20 percent funds must be used for national emergency grants 

(see fig.1). 

 5

U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation 

Formulas for Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers, GAO-03-636 (Washington, D.C., April 

25, 2003). 
Page 7 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

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

of Labor 

National emergency grant funds are used for several different types of 

grants, including 

• Regular grants. These provide employment and training assistance to 

workers who lost their jobs because of layoffs and plant closings. 

• Disaster grants. These provide temporary employment to workers 

affected by natural disasters and other catastrophic events. 

• Dual enrollment grants. These provide supplemental assistance to 

workers who have been certified by Labor to receive services under the 

Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002. Workers eligible 

under dual enrollment grants are typically workers who have lost their 

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

foreign countries. 

Grantees apply for national emergency grants when their dislocated 

worker formula funds are insufficient to meet the needs of affected 

workers. Entities that are eligible to receive regular national emergency 

grants are: 

• the designated state WIA program agency, 

• a local workforce investment area agency, 

• a consortium of local workforce investment boards for adjoining areas, 

and 

• a designated organization receiving funds through the Native American 

program provision of WIA. 
Page 8 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

For regular national emergency grants covering more than one state, 

eligible grantees are limited to a consortium of local workforce investment 

boards for adjoining local areas or a consortium of states. For disaster and 

dual enrollment grants, eligible grantees are limited to states. For national 

emergency grants awarded from program years 2000 to 2002, 241 grants 

were awarded to states and 6 grants were awarded to local areas. 

National emergency grants are discretionary awards by the Secretary of 

Labor that are intended to temporarily expand service capacity at the state 

and local levels by providing time-limited funding assistance in response 

to major layoffs. National emergency grant funds may be used to provide 

core, intensive, and training services.6

 For disaster-related projects, funds 

may be used for temporary employment assistance on projects that 

provide food, clothing, and shelter, as well as on projects that perform 

demolition, cleaning, repair, renovation, and reconstruction. According to 

Labor, projects funded by national emergency grants must be designed to 

achieve performance outcomes that support the performance goal 

commitments by the Secretary under the Government Performance and 

Results Act. Labor will provide target performance levels for national 

emergency grant projects through separate policy guidance. Beginning 

July 1, 2004, national emergency grant projects will be subject to the 

common measures for employment and training programs, including 

entered employment, job retention, and earnings increase. Participants in 

temporary disaster projects are expected to receive necessary assistance 

to return to the workforce. 

Between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003 (covering program years 2000, 

2001, and 2002), Labor distributed about $600 million from the dislocated 

worker reserved funds for national emergency grants to 46 states, the 

District of Columbia, Guam, and the Federated States of Micronesia (see 

fig. 2).7

 California, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, 

Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin received the largest amount of grant 

funds, at least $20 million each. 

 6

National emergency grant funds may not be used to pay for any costs of core services that 

have already been budgeted under available formula funds. 

7

In program year 2002, Labor also awarded about $3 million to 24 states to provide funding 

support for system-building costs associated with the provision of the new health care 

coverage benefits for eligible individuals and related tax credits and about $14 million to 

4 states to provide insurance payments to eligible dislocated workers as authorized by the 

Trade Reform Act of 2002. Both of these types of awards are funded through a separate 

appropriation. 
Page 9 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

Figure 2: Distribution of National Emergency Grant Funds for Regular, Disaster, and Dual Enrollment Grants from July 1, 

2000, to June 30, 2003 

Appendix II lists the amount of funds Labor distributed to each state for 

regular, disaster, and dual enrollment national emergency grants between 

July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003. Nearly two-thirds of the 247 grants 

Sources: GAO analysis of Labor grant awards during program years 2000 through 2002.

$0

$0.1 - 4.99 million

$5.0 - 9.99 million

$10.0 - 19.99 milion

$20 million or more

Guam – $13.3 million

Micronesia – $1.2 million
Page 10 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

awarded and about 60 percent of the funds awarded were for regular 

grants (see fig. 3). According to Labor officials, no grant applications 

received between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003 are still pending. 

Figure 3: Percentage of Grants Awarded and Funds Awarded for Program Years 

2000-2002, by Type of Grant 

In any program year, the Secretary can only award national emergency 

grants from funds available for that program year. That is, funds reserved 

for national emergency grants in program year 2002 must be awarded by 

June 30, 2003—the last day of program year 2002. 

The current system for submission and review of grant applications is 

manual and paper-based. States and local areas submit an application via 

mail or fax. Each national emergency grant application generally contains 

information on key aspects of the proposed project, such as amount of 

funds requested, planned number of participants, planned starting and end 

dates, planned expenditures by type of program activity, and expected 

performance outcomes, including how many participants they believe will 

become employed and what they believe their new wages will be. Labor 
Page 11 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

officials review the application and draft a decision memorandum that 

contains their recommendation as to whether the grant should be awarded 

and, if so, at what amount. The decision memorandum is forwarded to the 

Secretary, who makes the final award decision. After the Secretary’s 

award decision, Labor notifies the appropriate congressional office and 

issues the award letter to the grantee. National emergency grant awards 

can be disbursed in a single payment or in increments. In most cases, the 

initial increment will be for 6 months to enable a project to achieve full 

enrollment. For grants disbursed in more than one payment, grantees are 

required to submit supplemental information along with their requests for 

future incremental payments. This information generally includes the 

actual number of participants, performance outcomes, and expenditures. 

Grantees provide information to Labor on their use of grant funds through 

periodic progress reports.8

 Grantees submit periodic progress reports on 

their use of national emergency grant funds to Labor regional offices that 

monitor and oversee the grants. Grantees are required to submit the 

reports on a quarterly basis for regular and dual enrollment grants and on 

a biweekly basis for disaster grants. Progress reports generally contain 

information on the number of participants who registered for the program 

and received various services. They also contain the number of 

participants who entered employment, which Labor uses to assess 

grantees’ performance. 

States are required annually to submit to a national database, called the 

Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD), 

information on WIA participants who have left the program, including 

those who have left national emergency grant–funded programs. The 

WIASRD contains information on the types of services that each WIA 

participant receives, such as intensive or training services. For 

participants that received training, the WIASRD also contains information 

on the types of training activities they participated in, such as on-the-job 

training, adult education or basic literacy activities, or occupational skills 

training. 

 8

National emergency grant progress reports are a separate reporting requirement from WIA 

quarterly reports that states submit for their adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs. 

States are not required to report data on national emergency grants in the WIA quarterly or 

annual reports. 
Page 12 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

Labor’s grant process is not as effective as it could be because most grants 

are not awarded in a timely manner, and as a result, services to workers in 

some states have been delayed, interrupted, or denied. During program 

years 2000-2002, Labor’s goal was to approve national emergency grants 

within 30 calendar days of receiving a complete application. On average, 

92 days elapsed between the date Labor received a regular national 

emergency grant application and the date the award letter was signed. 

Labor was more likely to award grants toward the end of the program 

year, with nearly 40 percent of the grant awards made in the final month. 

Twenty-five of the 38 states responding to our survey reported that as a 

result of delays in receiving grant funds, services to dislocated workers 

were delayed, interrupted, or denied. 

The way Labor measures its progress toward meeting its timeliness goal 

does not reflect the full process for awarding national emergency grants. 

During program years 2000-2002, Labor’s goal was to approve national 

emergency grants within 30 calendar days of receiving a “complete” 

application. Labor contends that states, in their haste, often submit 

applications that require additional work and that the requests for funds 

cannot be processed until shortcomings are addressed. As a result, states 

may turn in their applications several times before Labor starts counting 

the days elapsed toward meeting its timeliness goal. Labor ends its 

counting once the Secretary approves the grant, although additional time 

is required to notify the appropriate congressional office and issue the 

award letter. For our analysis, we began counting on the first day Labor 

received a state’s application and continued even if states had to make 

revisions for the application to be considered complete by Labor. We did 

not stop counting until award letters were sent. Our counting more 

accurately reflects the grantee’s perspective: It begins at the first request 

for funds and ends at the point that funds can be obligated. Figure 4 

compares the points at which Labor starts and stops counting the days 

elapsed toward meeting its 30-day goal and the points at which GAO 

started and stopped counting the days in our analysis. 

Delays in Grant 

Awards Hampered 

Services to Dislocated 

Workers 

Labor’s Counting toward 

Timeliness Goal Does Not 

Reflect the Full Grant 

Award Process 
Page 13 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

Figure 4: Difference between How GAO and Labor Track the Grant Award Process 

We found that, on average, Labor took 92 days from the time an 

application was received to send a grant award letter. Nearly 90 percent of 

the regular grants awarded from July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2003 took more 

than 30 days to award.9

 Approximately 11 percent of the regular grants 

awarded during program years 2000-2002 took 30 or fewer days to award, 

whereas nearly half took more than 90 days (see fig. 5). 

 9

Throughout the report, we define grant award as the date the award letter was sent and at 

which time grantees can begin obligating funds. 

Most Grant Awards Took 

Longer than 30 Days 
Page 14 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

Figure 5: Percentage of Regular Grants Awarded during Program Years 2000-2002 

within Specified Time Frames 

Note: Although 159 regular grants were awarded between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003, this 

information is based upon our review and analysis of 141 grants for which complete information was 

available. 

Labor took less time to award disaster and dual enrollment grants than it 

did to award regular grants. Dual enrollment grants, which represent 

about a third of the funds awarded during program years 2000-2002, took 

an average of 20 days to award, and disaster grants, which represent less 

than 10 percent of the funds awarded, took an average of 48 days.10

 10Although 19 disaster grants and 68 dual enrollment grants were awarded between 

July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003, this information is based upon our review and analysis of 

11 disaster grants and 49 dual enrollment grants for which complete information was 

available. 
Page 15 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

The amount of time Labor took to award regular grants appeared to be 

related to the quarter in which the application was received. For example, 

regular grant applications received in the first quarter of a program year 

took longer to award than applications received in the second, third, and 

fourth quarters (see table 1). 

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

Received during Program Years 2000-2002 

Quarter application was received Average number of days to award grant

First 111

Second 109

Third 100

Fourth 58

Source: GAO analysis of Labor grant awards during program years 2000 through 2002. 

Labor awards most of the regular grants later in the year. Nearly 

60 percent of all regular grants were awarded in the fourth quarter of the 

program year, representing nearly two-thirds of the regular grant funds 

awarded. This trend exists despite the fact that about the same proportion 

of applications are received in the second, third, and fourth quarters of the 

program year: Over 30 percent of the applications were submitted during 

the second quarter of the program year, and about 27 percent were 

submitted in the third and fourth quarters (see fig. 6). 

Grant Applications 

Submitted Early in the 

Program Year Took Longer 

to Award, and Most Grants 

Were Awarded Later in the 

Year 
Page 16 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

Figure 6: Percentage of Regular Grant Applications and Awards by Quarter during 

Program Years 2000-2002 

Although applications were received at a steady rate throughout the last 

three quarters of the program year, about 40 percent of the regular grants 

were awarded in June, the final month of the program year, representing 

about one-half of the regular grant funds awarded. Moreover, the 

percentage of applications submitted by month during the program year 

did not significantly increase as the year went on, with October (the fourth 

month of the program year), being the month when the largest percentage 

of applications was submitted (see fig. 7). 
Page 17 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

Figure 7: Percentage of Regular Grant Applications and Awards by Month during 

Program Years 2000-2002 

June was the most prevalent month for awarding other types of grants as 

well. About 42 percent of the disaster grants and 90 percent of the dual 

enrollment grants were awarded in the last month of the program year. 

Award dates were more closely linked to application dates for dual 

enrollment grants because, according to Labor officials, grantees apply for 

these grants near the end of the program year, when Trade Act funds 

become exhausted. The vast majority (92 percent) of the dual enrollment 

applications were submitted in the last 2 months of the program year. 

Approximately 80 percent of the incremental payments made during 

program years 2000-2002 took longer than 30 days for Labor to award (see 

fig. 8).11 On average, Labor took 83 days to award incremental payments, 

 11Although 44 regular grant incremental payments were made between July 1, 2000, and 

June 30, 2003, this information is based upon our review and analysis of 36 payments for 

which complete information was available. 

Incremental Payments 

Also Took Longer than 30 

Days to Award 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor grant awards during program years 2000 through 2002.

Percentage of regular grant applications and awards

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Awards

Applications

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Page 18 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

which is 9 days quicker than the average number of days Labor took to 

make initial regular grant awards. Labor officials attributed delays to 

grantees submitting incomplete requests that require additional work. On 

the other hand, some state officials said that they were unclear about the 

requirements for requesting an incremental payment because of lack of 

guidelines on how to submit a request. During program years 2000-2002, 

Labor awarded 43 incremental payments totaling about $84 million. 

According to Labor, grantees should expect that all grant awards will be 

funded incrementally. 

Figure 8: Percentage of Regular Grant Incremental Payments Awarded within 

Specified Time Frames 

Thirty-three of the 38 states that responded to our survey said that the 

amount of time it took to receive regular grant funds was a major problem. 

Eight of these states were awarded five or more regular grants during 

program years 2000-2002, and Labor averaged between 51 and 103 days to 

award grants to these states (see fig. 9). 

Delays Hindered States’ 

Abilities to Serve Workers 
Page 19 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

Figure 9: Average Number of Days to Award Regular Grants to States with at Least 

Five Grants during Program Years 2000-2002 

Twenty-five states said that because of the delays in receiving grant funds, 

local areas had to delay or deny services to dislocated workers. In most of 

these states, the delays affected local areas’ ability to place dislocated 

workers in training. Twenty of these states reported that local areas had to 

delay or cancel training for dislocated workers because, while waiting for 

national emergency grant funds, they did not have funds available to enroll 

workers in training. For example, Massachusetts officials noted that 

workers in one local area were placed on waiting lists for 3 to 4 months 

before they received training. Similarly, Nevada officials reported that a 

local area cancelled training for more than 300 workers because of a delay 

in receiving grant funds. Six states also reported that local areas could not 

provide intensive services, such as case management, to workers because 

of delays in receiving grant funds. For example, Kentucky reported that 

while waiting to receive national emergency grant funds, local areas could 

only provide workers with core services and could not provide workers 
Page 20 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

with job training, career counseling, case management, or supportive 

services, such as assistance with transportation and child care.12

Labor has taken steps that may improve the process for awarding national 

emergency grants, but additional actions are needed to better manage the 

grant award process. Labor is moving from a paper-based system for 

reviewing grant applications to an electronic system that will enable states 

or local areas to apply for grants online. Labor has also documented its 

goal to make an award decision within 30 business days of receiving a 

complete application.13 However, some weaknesses still remain in Labor’s 

planned changes that could prevent Labor from accurately assessing how 

long it takes to make grant awards and incremental payments. 

Labor has made a number of changes intended to improve the efficiency of 

the application process by helping applicants submit applications that are 

as close to being complete as possible. Labor has clarified its application 

requirements in guidance issued on January 26, 2004.14 In addition, Labor 

has conducted training for states on providing an integrated service 

response for dislocated workers, including training on the requirements 

for receiving national emergency grants. Labor also plans to provide 

technical assistance and work with states on an individual basis to help 

them fully integrate services available to dislocated workers through the 

one-stop service delivery system. Furthermore, Labor plans to implement 

a new electronic system by July 1, 2004, that would allow applicants to 

submit applications electronically. The new system will automatically 

check applications for missing or inconsistent information, such as blanks 

that should be filled in or numbers that do not add up correctly. If any 

problems are found, the system notifies applicants. Only when the system 

no longer finds problems with the application will it allow the application 

to go forward. In doing so, the system ensures that each required field 

contains information and that information in different fields is consistent, 

but it cannot check the quality of the information submitted. 

 12The three grants awarded to Kentucky grantees took 71, 122, and 181 days from when the 

grant applications were received to when the award letter was signed. 

13Labor will no longer include weekends and holidays when counting toward its 30-day 

goal. 

14U.S. Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 16-03 

(Washington, D.C., 2004). 

Labor Has Taken 

Steps to Improve the 

Grant Award Process, 

but Additional 

Actions are Needed 

Labor’s Actions Are a Step 

in the Right Direction 
Page 21 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

The electronic system will also replace Labor’s paper-based system for 

managing the application review process. The electronic system will count 

how many days have elapsed since the application was submitted and 

track the progress of various steps of the review. Specifically, the system 

• automatically assigns applications to staff for review within a day of 

submission, 

• reassigns an application to another staff person if the staff originally 

assigned is not available, 

• gives each staff person a deadline for completing his or her part of the 

review, 

• tracks the date that staff complete their responsibilities, 

• automatically transfers information from the application into the 

decision memorandum, and 

• enables managers to check on the progress of the review, including 

how long specific parts of the review are taking. 

As part of a reengineering project, Labor contracted with IBM to review 

Labor’s grant award process. IBM reviewed Labor’s current grant award 

process as well as the new electronic system to determine whether any 

further improvements would be needed.15 In addition, IBM is planning to 

conduct further review of other areas such as staffing levels, skills, and 

workflow patterns. 

Finally, Labor is planning to issue guidelines that document its timeliness 

goal. As stated in the proposed guidelines, the goal will be to make a grant 

award decision within 30 business days of receiving a complete 

application. These guidelines had not been issued as of April 6, 2004. 

Some weaknesses still remain in Labor’s planned changes that could 

prevent Labor from accurately assessing how long it takes to make grant 

awards and incremental payments. First, the way Labor has defined its 30-

day goal allows the agency to stop counting the number of days elapsed if 

it finds problems with the grant application.16 For example, if Labor finds a 

major problem, such as with a planned expenditure for a program activity, 

 15U.S. Department of Labor, National Emergency Grants Program: NEG Review Process 

Reengineering Project: Phase I Report, Final Report (March 9, 2004). 

16The proposed guidelines also state that Labor will restart the counting if a state submits a 

revised application that Labor has not requested. 

Additional Actions Needed 

to Better Manage Grant 

Award Process 
Page 22 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

it will stop the electronic system’s counting of days elapsed and ask the 

state or local area to revise the application. After the state or local area 

submits a revised application, Labor will start the counting at day one (see 

fig. 10). However, if Labor finds a minor problem with the application, 

such as insufficient justification in the narrative explanation for the 

proposed number of dislocated workers to be enrolled, it will stop the 

counting and, once the state or local area submits a revised application, 

will restart the counting from the day it left off. Because of Labor’s ability 

to stop its counting of days elapsed, its tracking system may not accurately 

reflect the number of days it takes Labor to award grants or allow Labor to 

identify how long particular steps in the process contribute to the amount 

of time it takes to award grants. 

Figure 10: New Process for Awarding National Emergency Grants and Number of 

Days Allowed in Each Step 

A second problem is that Labor’s timeliness goal still only includes the 

days up to the Secretary’s award decision, leaving the agency unable to 

identify delays that occur after the award decision. Labor’s proposed 

guidelines specify a goal to approve or disapprove applications within 

30 business days from receipt of a complete and responsive application. 

As stated, the goal would not include the steps between the Secretary’s 

approval and the issuance of the award letter, such as the notification of 

congressional offices of the award, the preparation of the award letter, and 

the preparation for the disbursement of funds. With some grants awarded 

in program years 2000 to 2002, 20 or more calendar days passed between 

the date the Secretary approved the grant by signing the decision 

State submits 

application 

electronically.

Applications 

automatically 

assigned to staff 

for review.

Staff conduct review, 

gather comments, 

identify problematic 

issues.

If a major problem 

found, clock is 

stopped and reset to 

zero. State revises 

application and 

resubmits.

If a minor problem 

found, clock is 

stopped temporarily. 

State revises 

application.

Labor reviews 

applications and 

drafts decision 

memo.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by Labor.

Day 0 Day 1 Days 2-6
Page 23 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

memorandum and the date Labor issued the award letter to the grantee.17

For example, for a grant awarded to Missouri, 34 days passed between the 

date the Secretary signed the decision memorandum and the date the 

award letter was sent. Such delays can interfere with a state or local area’s 

ability to take steps necessary to begin to provide services such as 

entering into contracts with training providers or hiring staff. 

A third weakness is that Labor’s proposed guidelines do not establish a 

timeliness goal for awarding incremental payments, despite stating that 

most grants will be awarded incrementally. Labor has stated that the 

amount of time to approve incremental payments should be no longer than 

the time required to review the original application—30 business days.18

However, this goal has not been formally documented in the proposed 

guidelines. In addition, the electronic system does not allow grantees to 

apply for incremental payments online, and it will not track the progress of 

the review of requests for incremental payments. Labor plans to use a 

manual process to track its progress toward meeting its 30-day goal for 

incremental payments. 

Little is known on a national level about how national emergency grant 

funds are used because of weaknesses in two data sources, and although 

Labor is taking steps to improve the data collected, these steps may not go 

far enough to ensure the data’s reliability. Data in progress reports 

submitted by grantees to Labor could not be analyzed on a national level 

because the reports’ data elements vary from grantee to grantee and the 

information is not available electronically. Furthermore, the reliability of 

information contained in Labor’s national database on participants served 

by WIA funds, including national emergency grants, cannot be ensured 

because the data are incomplete and unverified. Labor’s steps to address 

some of these issues may not go far enough to rectify data problems. For 

progress reports, Labor has not issued detailed guidance to ensure that 

data elements are defined consistently. In addition, although Labor has 

checked states’ most recent submissions to the national participant 

database to identify whether data are missing, Labor does not have 

 17This information is based upon the review and analysis of 16 grants for which 150 or more 

calendar days elapsed between the date the original grant application was received and the 

date the award letter was sent. 

18Awarding of incremental payments does not require the approval of the Secretary of 

Labor. 

Little Is Known about 

How Grant Funds Are 

Used because of 

Weaknesses in Data 

Collection 
Page 24 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

specific plans to check states’ future submissions to ensure that data are 

complete. 

Neither of the two primary data sources on the national emergency grant 

program—progress reports and WIASRD—can be used to provide 

accurate national-level information on the use of national emergency grant 

funds.19 Largely because of a lack of clear guidance, grantees are not 

submitting reliable information to both data sources. 

Data in progress reports cannot be summarized to provide a national 

picture of how grant funds are used because not all states reported the 

same data. Labor has not issued guidance under WIA on the submission of 

national emergency grant progress reports, and as a result, the data 

submitted in reports vary from grantee to grantee. For example, while 

most of the 13 states that we obtained sample reports from provided 

information on the number of people enrolled in training, only about half 

reported the number enrolled in core and intensive services, and just one 

reported expenditures by type of service (see table 2). 

Table 2: Information Contained in Progress Reports from 13 States 

Data element 

Number of states that 

provided informationa

Number of states that did 

not provide information

Enrollments in core services 7 6

Enrollments in intensive services 5 8

Enrollments in training services 11 2

Expenditures by types of services 1 12

Entered employment 12 1

Source: GAO analysis of progress reports provided by Labor regional offices. 

a

This includes states that provided information in some but not all cases. 

In addition, grantees may interpret the data elements in different ways. 

For example, according to Labor regional officials, states vary in how they 

 19Some information on use of national emergency grant funds is available in a study 

conducted by Social Policy Research Associates and funded by the Department of Labor. 

This study provides information on nine programs funded by national emergency grants in 

eight states. The sample of projects was not selected to be representative of the whole 

population of national emergency grant projects. 

Data Collected Is 

Inconsistent and 

Unreliable 
Page 25 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

define “entered employment.” Some states use the WIA definition, which 

calculates entered employment using quarterly unemployment insurance 

wage reports that may not be available until several months after the 

person has started a job. Other states use the definition under the Job 

Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program that WIA replaced, which 

calculates the number using information gathered by the caseworker at 

the time the person is placed in employment. A grantee that uses the WIA 

definition may appear to place workers in employment less effectively 

than a grantee that uses the JTPA definition because the grantee using the 

WIA definition must wait several months before reporting that a 

participant entered employment.20 Furthermore, the data in progress 

reports are not electronically available or stored in a central location 

because Labor does not have an electronic system through which grantees 

can submit the reports. Instead, grantees submit the reports to the 

appropriate regional office by e-mail or as paper documents, making 

analysis of the data cumbersome. 

Labor’s guidance is not as clear as it could be about whether states are 

required to submit to WIASRD data on participants served with national 

emergency grant funds. One part of the WIASRD reporting instructions 

says that states are required to provide data for participants who exited 

WIA Title I-B services, which are services offered by the adult, dislocated 

worker, and youth formula funds programs.21 A Labor official and a 

manager of the WIASRD database stated that this part of the guidance 

could be interpreted by states to mean that they are not required to submit 

data to WIASRD for other programs, such as national emergency grants. In 

addition, some Labor officials we spoke with believed that states were not 

required to submit WIASRD data on all national emergency grant 

participants. 

Either because the data were not submitted or were submitted incorrectly, 

WIASRD does not contain data for all states that received national 

emergency grants. The program year 2001 WIASRD contained no data for 

five states that collectively received 16 grants in program year 2000, 

constituting 23 percent of the grants awarded in that year (see table 3). In 

 20Use of unemployment insurance wage reports to determine the number of participants 

who entered employment is generally considered to be more reliable than use of 

information gathered by caseworkers. 

21U.S. Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 14-00 

(Washington, D.C., 2001). 
Page 26 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

addition, it contained few data for Rhode Island, although a Rhode Island 

official said that 210 participants exited national emergency grant 

programs in program year 2001. 

Table 3: Comparison of State’s PY2001 WIASRD National Emergency Grant 

Participant Records with Grants Received in PY2000 

State 

Number of national 

emergency grant 

participant records in 

program year 2001 

WIASRD (7/1/01—6/30/02) 

Number of national 

emergency grants awarded 

in program year 2000 

(7/1/00—6/30/01)a

Alabama 0 1

New Jersey 0 4

Ohio 0 6

Rhode Island 7 4

Virginia 0 1

Wisconsin 0 4

Source: GAO analysis of the program year 2001 WIASRD and list of program year 2000 grants provided by Labor.

a

Includes incremental payments received from 7/1/00 to 6/30/01. 

However, even if the data submitted to WIASRD on national emergency 

grants were complete, questions about their accuracy would persist. In its 

review of state-reported WIA performance data, Labor’s Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) concluded that little assurance exists that the 

data are accurate or verifiable because of inadequate oversight of data 

collection and management at the federal, state, and local levels.22 A recent 

GAO report confirmed the OIG’s findings.23

Labor has developed a standard reporting form and electronic system for 

national emergency grant progress reports and plans to implement these 

changes in July 2004. Labor’s proposed guidelines require grantees to use a 

particular reporting form to submit information on a quarterly basis on the 

 22Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Workforce Investment Act 

Performance Outcomes Reporting Oversight, 06-02-006-03-390 (Washington, D.C., Sept. 30, 

2002). 

23U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help 

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

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

Labor Is Taking Actions 

to Improve Data 
Page 27 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

number of participants receiving intensive services, training, and other 

services, as well as expenditures on these various services, the number of 

participants who exited the program, and the number of participants who 

entered employment. A standard reporting form is likely to increase the 

consistency of grantee-reported data by ensuring that grantees submit 

information on the same data elements. However, Labor has not yet issued 

guidance informing grantees how to define data elements such as the 

number of participants who have entered employment. Without common 

definitions, grantees may submit inconsistent data based on their different 

interpretations of data elements. In addition, Labor’s electronic system for 

managing the grant application process will enable grantees to submit 

their progress reports electronically. The system will compile the data into 

an electronic dataset, facilitating analysis of the data. 

Labor is also taking steps to improve the completeness and accuracy of 

WIASRD data on national emergency grant participants. In guidance 

issued on November 13, 2003, for the submission of program year 2002 

data, Labor specified that states are required to include participants who 

exited from national emergency grant programs.24 According to Labor 

officials, the agency also plans to clarify the WIASRD reporting 

requirements for national emergency grants in new guidance on 

performance measures to be issued by July 2004. In addition, for the 

program year 2002 WIASRD, Labor checked states’ submissions to 

determine whether data had been submitted for all grants awarded. For 

states whose submissions were missing data, Labor requested that they 

send in a revised submission that included data on national emergency 

grants. However, managers of the WIASRD database said that some states 

were not able to send in data on national emergency grant participants, 

and as a result, the program year 2002 WIASRD will not have complete 

data. Although Labor does not have specific, written plans to check states’ 

future WIASRD submissions to identify missing data, a Labor official 

believes the agency will continue to check submissions. Labor is also 

planning to implement a data validation program to ensure the accuracy of 

state-reported data on national emergency grant participants. According to 

Labor officials, this program is in the early planning stages and no date has 

been set for its implementation. 

 24U.S. Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 14-03 

(Washington, D.C., 2003). 
Page 28 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

With nearly 7 million workers losing their jobs in the few years since the 

turn of the century, increasing importance has been placed on programs 

intended to help dislocated workers. When major layoffs and disasters 

occur, states and local areas need to respond quickly to ensure that 

workers facing unemployment receive the services they need to re-enter 

the workforce at a comparable wage. Unfortunately, their dislocated 

worker formula funds are often insufficient to adequately meet the needs 

of the large number of workers losing their jobs. In previous work, we 

found that the formula used to allocate dislocated worker funds does not 

always result in states receiving the amount of funds they need. 

Accordingly, states and local areas turn to Labor for additional funds, such 

as those reserved by Labor for national emergency grants. 

Timely awarding of national emergency grants is imperative for states and 

local areas to provide services when they are most needed. Therefore, it is 

important that Labor consider the length of time it takes to complete the 

full process for awarding grants. Although Labor is making changes to the 

award process, some concerns remain. Labor does not have a timeliness 

goal for the full award process or for incremental payments. In addition, 

the proposed guidelines do not require the continuous counting of days 

from the time the application is received until the grant is awarded—Labor 

can stop the clock if officials feel the application is incomplete. As a result, 

Labor may appear to meet its timeliness goal even though, from a grantee’s 

perspective, the grant funds were received months after the application 

was filed. 

Neither of the two primary data sources on the national emergency grants 

provides reliable national-level information on how these funds are used. 

Reliable information on how national emergency grant funds are used is 

essential for Labor to effectively manage the program and report on a 

national level how grant funds are being used. 

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

accurately assess how long it takes to make grant awards and incremental 

payments, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor take additional 

actions. In particular, Labor should 

• set timeliness goals for the full process—from the receipt of the 

application until the award letter is sent—for initial grant awards and 

incremental payments; and 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
Page 29 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

• continuously track the number of days that have passed, beginning 

when applications are first submitted and until the award letter is sent, 

including days grantees spend revising their applications. 

In addition, to ensure that information relating to national emergency 

grants is accurate and complete, we recommend that Labor 

• develop specific reporting guidance on progress reports to ensure that 

grantees define data elements consistently, and 

• ensure that all states submit WIASRD data on participants exiting from 

services provided with national emergency grants (for grantees that are 

not states, ensure that they submit WIASRD data on national 

emergency grants to states for submission to Labor). 

We provided a draft of this report to officials at Labor for their review and 

comment. In its comments, Labor took issue with the report’s 

methodology, said it believes that the report makes assertions not 

supported by empirical evidence, and disagreed with our conclusions. 

Labor stated that timeliness of national emergency grants has been a 

concern dating back to JTPA and that the current administration set a goal 

of 30 working days to provide states with an answer to a complete 

application. Labor also contends that the weaknesses in the improvements 

being undertaken in the grant award process that we cite in the report are 

subjective and inaccurate. Finally, Labor listed reforms that are under way 

or have been implemented, including business process mapping, an 

electronic application tool, policy guidance, regional forums, and technical 

assistance to states. 

We disagree with Labor’s characterization of the report’s methodology and 

conclusions. As stated in the report, our analysis looked at the complete 

application process from a grantee’s perspective. We reviewed files for 

every regular grant that was awarded between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 

2003, for which complete information was available and compared the 

date that Labor received the application with the date Labor issued an 

award letter to the grantee. States and local areas apply for national 

emergency grants when a major layoff occurs, and it is imperative that 

grantees receive funds in a timely manner to provide assistance when it is 

most needed. Accordingly, we believe that the date the application is 

received is an appropriate starting point for the grant award process. If 

applications are incomplete, then this issue should be addressed and the 

application moved forward in a timely manner. We recognize a shared 

Agency Comments 
Page 30 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

responsibility to ensure that grant applications are complete and accurate, 

and as pointed out in our report, Labor has taken steps to assist grantees 

in submitting applications that are as close to being complete as possible. 

We also believe that the ending date should be when the grantee is notified 

of the award rather than at an interim departmental approval point. As we 

reported, the final steps after Labor has stopped the clock on the award 

process have taken an additional 20 or more days in some cases. Delays in 

grant awards have had effects on the ability of local areas to provide 

services to workers who have lost their jobs, as reported by 25 states that 

responded to our survey on national emergency grants. For Labor to have 

set a goal for the award process is commendable, but the emphasis needs 

to be on awarding national emergency grants as quickly as possible to 

allow local areas to meet the needs of dislocated workers. 

We also disagree that the stated weaknesses in the improvements being 

undertaken in the grant award process are subjective and inaccurate. 

Rather these weaknesses are based upon Labor’s proposed guidelines and 

discussions with Labor officials. First, Labor’s proposed guidelines state 

that Labor is committed to making a decision to approve or disapprove an 

application within 30 working days of receiving a complete application. 

As pointed out in our report, there are steps that follow this decision that 

have taken another 20 days in some cases, and Labor’s counting of days 

elapsed may not always be continuous. We believe the 30-day goal should 

include the entire process. Second, the proposed guidelines do not relate 

the 30-day goal to incremental payments, and Labor officials confirmed 

that incremental payments are not yet included in the new electronic 

system. Third, while the proposed guidelines provide a form for progress 

reports, Labor officials acknowledged that data element definitions have 

not yet been developed. Finally, while a Labor official speculated that 

checking the completeness of states’ submissions to the WIASRD database 

would continue, no such plans have been documented. We believe that to 

better manage the national emergency grant award process, these 

additional actions should be implemented. 

In regard to the reforms cited by Labor in its comments, our report 

identified all of these efforts except for the proposed technical assistance. 

We have added a statement to the report to indicate that Labor plans to 

provide technical assistance and work with states on an individual basis to 

help them fully integrate services available to dislocated workers through 

the one-stop service delivery system. Labor’s comments are in appendix 

IV. 
Page 31 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 14 days from its 

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to relevant 

congressional committees and other interested parties and will 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. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-7215. Other major contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix V. 

Sigurd R. Nilsen 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 32 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

We were asked to determine (1) the effectiveness of the overall process 

for awarding national emergency grant funds, (2) whether Labor’s 

proposed changes will improve the grant award process, and (3) what is 

known about how grant funds are being used. To respond to these issues, 

we interviewed Labor officials at both headquarters and regional offices, 

reviewed Labor files for all grants awarded during program years 2000 

through 2002, and surveyed officials in the 39 states that had received at 

least one regular national emergency grant during that period. We also 

reviewed Labor’s two data sources that contain information on the use of 

national emergency grants. We conducted our work from March 2003 to 

March 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

We obtained from Labor a listing of all national emergency grants awarded 

between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003. We then reviewed files maintained 

by Labor to identify when the original application was submitted and 

received and the date the award letter was signed. For those grants funded 

incrementally, we also identified when the incremental funding request 

was submitted and received and the date the incremental award letter was 

sent. We limited our analysis to those grants funded with the Secretary’s 

reserve from the dislocated worker funds under the Workforce Investment 

Act (WIA). For some grants, documentation on when the application was 

received was not in the files (see table 4). 

Table 4: Number of National Emergency Grants Awarded and Used in GAO Analysis 

Type of grant 

Number of grants 

awarded between July 1, 

2000, and June 30, 2003 

Number of files 

containing complete 

information used in our 

analysis

Regular grants 159 141

Disaster grants 19 11

Dual enrollment grants 69 49

Source: GAO analysis of national emergency grants awarded between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003. 

Using information contained in the files, for each grant we calculated the 

number of calendar days between the date Labor received the original 

grant application and the date of the grant award letter. 

For 16 grants for which 150 or more calendar days elapsed between the 

date the original grant application was received and the date the award 

letter was sent, we conducted a detailed review of the grant files to 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

File Review 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 33 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

determine how long various steps of the review process took. We 

identified dates that applicants submitted additional information, dates 

that Labor received the additional information, dates of the decision 

memorandum, dates that the Secretary signed the decision memorandum, 

and dates that various Labor staff approved the award letter. We then 

calculated the number of calendar days that elapsed between each of 

these dates. 

To obtain information on states’ experiences with the process for 

receiving national emergency grants, we conducted an e-mail survey of 

officials in 39 states that received at least one regular grant in program 

years 2000 to 2002 (see figure 11). 

Figure 11: 39 States Surveyed That Were Awarded a Regular National Emergency 

Grant during Program Years 2000 through 2002 

Survey of States That 

Received Regular Grants 

Source: GAO analysis of national emergency grants awarded between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2003.

Not surveyed

Surveyed

Alaska

Hawaii

Pa.

Ore.

Nev.

Idaho

Mont.

Wyo.

Utah

Ariz. N.Mex.

Colo.

N.Dak.

S.Dak.

Nebr.

Tex.

Kans.

Okla.

Minn.

Iowa

Mo.

Ark.

La.

Ill.

Miss.

Ind.

Ky.

Tenn.

Ala.

Fla. 

Ga.

S.C.

N.C.

Va.

Ohio

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

W.Va.

Mich.

Calif.

Wash.

Wis. N.Y.

Maine 

Vt.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 34 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

We received responses from 38 states (a 97 percent response rate).1 We 

limited the survey to regular grants because they constituted about 

60 percent of the grants awarded, representing about 64 percent of the 

funds, in that time period. Although Labor also awarded four regular 

grants to local areas in program years 2000 to 2002, we limited our survey 

to state officials because the number of local grantees was too small to be 

meaningful. 

We identified the states that received regular grants from a list that Labor 

provided of grants awarded in program years 2000 to 2002 and the state in 

which they were awarded.2

In developing our survey, we conducted pretests with three states. We 

contacted respondents to clarify information when needed. We analyzed 

the survey data by calculating descriptive statistics, as well as performing 

content analysis of the responses to open-ended survey questions. 

To determine whether progress reports might be a viable source of data to 

determine how national emergency grant funds are used at the national 

level, we obtained progress reports from 1 to 3 states from each of the 

Labor regional offices. We analyzed the reports to determine how 

consistent the data elements were from state to state. 

To determine whether the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record 

Data (WIASRD) might be a viable source of data to determine how 

national emergency grant funds are used at the national level, we reviewed 

guidance issued by Labor and reports issued by Labor’s Office of Inspector 

General (OIG), state agencies, and Labor contractors. We also interviewed 

the OIG official responsible for an audit of WIA’s performance data and 

the officials from Social Policy Research Associates, the Labor contractor 

responsible for compiling the WIASRD. In addition, we performed 

electronic tests of the program year 2001 WIASRD data, including 

 1

Illinois did not respond to the survey. 

2

We initially e-mailed surveys to 42 states, but 3 states contacted us and explained that they 

had not received regular grants from program years 2000 to 2002. In 1 state, the grants we 

had identified as regular were actually dual enrollment grants. In 2 states, the grants we 

had identified as regular were actually incremental payments for grants awarded prior to 

program year 2000, when the grants were part of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) 

program. We confirmed their information with the grant application files and did not 

include these 3 states in our survey population. 

Assessment of Data 

Quality 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 35 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

conducting frequencies and cross-tabulations, comparing results with 

those in published reports and identifying missing or incorrect values. 

To determine the completeness of data on national emergency grants in 

the WIASRD, we compared states’ data in the program year 2001 WIASRD 

against a list of states that had received one or more regular, dual 

enrollment, or disaster grants at least one year prior to the end of the 

reporting period for the 2001 WIASRD or by June 30, 2001. This analysis 

assumes that some participants in a grant program begun in program year 

2000 would have exited during program year 2001. For states for which the 

2001 WIASRD did not contain data on grant participants although they had 

received grants in program year 2000, we contacted the states to confirm 

that participants served with grants had exited in program year 2001. 

We determined that the WIASRD data elements pertinent to this report 

were not sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We have discussed the data 

reliability issues throughout the body of the report. 

To obtain information on the process for awarding national emergency 

grants, we conducted interviews with Labor officials in the Office of 

National Response and Office of Grants and Contracts Management. We 

also interviewed officials in the Employment and Training 

Administration’s (ETA) Office of Technology to obtain information on the 

electronic system for managing the grant process. To obtain information 

on reporting requirements and monitoring and oversight practices for the 

national emergency grant program, we interviewed officials in the Office 

of Field Operations. We also interviewed officials in all six Labor regions 

who are responsible for monitoring and oversight of national emergency 

grants. In Region 1, we interviewed both the Boston office and the New 

York office. 

To obtain information on Labor’s data validation initiative for national 

emergency grants, we interviewed an official in ETA’s Performance and 

Results Office and a contractor developing the technical components of 

the initiative. We also attended a training session on the WIA data 

validation initiative held in Labor’s San Francisco office for states and 

local areas in Region 6. 

Interviews with Labor 

Officials 
Appendix II: Summary of Funds Awarded for 

Regular, Disaster, and Dual Enrollment 

Grants for Program Years 2000–2002 

Page 36 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

State Regular Disaster Dual enrollment Total

Alabama $1,391,359 0 $8,935,689 $10,327,048

Arizona 1,271,931 $2,291,674 456,286 4,019,891

Arkansas 8,745,980 1,176,000 1,257,566 11,179,546

California 38,631,721 0 8,576,548 47,208,269

Colorado 6,411,981 0 797,952 7,209,933

Connecticut 5,139,856 0 799,621 5,939,477

District of Columbia 876,573 0 0 876,573

Federated States of Micronesia 0 1,150,000 0 1,150,000

Florida 11,064,618 0 6,353,858 17,418,476

Georgia 3,446,880 0 0 3,446,880

Guam 0 13,300,000 0 13,300,000

Idaho 4,445,674 0 1,800,000 6,245,674

Illinois 9,012,466 0 7,238,985 16,251,451

Indiana 5,474,686 550,456 1,249,999 7,275,141

Iowa 9,540,435 818,561 5,617,404 15,976,400

Kansas 3,267,080 0 3,145,175 6,412,255

Kentucky 8,084,658 0 2,851,146 10,935,804

Louisiana 0 4,780,000 0 4,780,000

Maine 16,396,287 0 1,717,471 18,113,758

Maryland 7,884,071 1,000,000 267,245 9,151,316

Massachusetts 28,871,460 0 2,764,133 31,635,593

Michigan 1,427,657 0 8,436,000 9,863,657

Minnesota 13,486,750 1,825,000 4,679,140 19,990,890

Mississippi 1,644,366 0 0 1,644,366

Missouri 8,693,208 2,876,946 3,863,989 15,434,143

Montana 9,638,868 4,314,800 614,322 14,567,990

Nebraska 2,168,931 0 1,357,528 3,526,459

Nevada 5,800,000 0 0 5,800,000

New Hampshire 5,474,859 0 5,474,859

New Jersey 3,570,627 0 6,387,037 9,957,664

New Mexico 0 0 560,842 560,842

New York 0 0 1,561,851 1,561,851

North Carolina 0 0 19,373,963 19,373,963

North Dakota 378,793 0 99,000 477,793

Appendix II: Summary of Funds Awarded for 

Regular, Disaster, and Dual Enrollment 

Grants for Program Years 2000–2002 
Appendix II: Summary of Funds Awarded for 

Regular, Disaster, and Dual Enrollment 

Grants for Program Years 2000–2002 

Page 37 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

State Regular Disaster Dual enrollment Total

Ohio 15,200,826 1,500,000 10,338,929 27,039,755

Oklahoma 2,907,969 1,000,000 2,876,964 6,784,933

Oregon 18,151,492 0 8,665,146 26,816,638

Pennsylvania 20,319,216 0 49,071,363 69,390,579

Rhode Island 1,027,470 0 2,068,236 3,095,706

South Carolina 1,895,619 0 1,519,039 3,414,658

South Dakota 2,308,571 0 123,694 2,432,265

Tennessee 4,827,774 0 888,873 5,716,647

Texas 23,776,743 0 3,011,738 26,788,481

Utah 0 0 740,230 740,230

Vermont 750,000 0 635,877 1,385,877

Virginia 22,350,000 0 3,303,031 25,653,031

Washington 11,768,668 0 13,661,486 25,430,154

West Virginia 0 12,499,990 0 12,499,990

Wisconsin 6,591,086 250,000 13,322,451 20,163,537

Total $354,117,209 $49,333,427 $210,989,807 $614,440,443

Source: GAO analysis of regular, disaster, and dual enrollment grant funds awarded between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003. 

The amounts shown include national emergency grant funds awarded 

during program years 2000-2002. This includes all initial grant awards and 

incremental payments made during this time, including incremental 

payments made for grants initially awarded prior to July 1, 2000. For 

example, Arizona and North Dakota each received an incremental 

payment for a regular grant awarded under the Job Training Partnership 

Act (JTPA). 

Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, and Wyoming did not receive any regular, 

disaster, or dual enrollment national emergency grants during program 

years 2000-2002. 
Appendix III: Average Number of Days 

Regular Grants Were Awarded, by State 

Page 38 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

State 

Number of regular 

grantsa

Average number of days from 

receipt of application to award 

Alabama 2 120

Arkansas 1 23

California 1 206

Colorado 1 62

Connecticut 6 102

District of Columbia 1 131

Florida 1 63

Georgia 4 137

Idaho 4 70

Illinois 3 39

Indiana 2 92

Iowa 16 103

Kansas 3 63

Kentucky 3 126

Maine 13 91

Maryland 2 77

Massachusetts 9 87

Michigan 3 85

Minnesota 3 103

Missouri 12 99

Montana 5 51

Nebraska 2 40

Nevada 1 79

New Hampshire 3 78

New Jersey 3 174

Ohio 4 40

Oklahoma 3 123

Oregon 6 96

Pennsylvania 4 109

Rhode Island 3 32

South Carolina 1 122

South Dakota 3 82

Tennessee 2 116

Texas 3 122

Virginia 2 106

Appendix III: Average Number of Days 

Regular Grants Were Awarded, by State 
Appendix III: Average Number of Days 

Regular Grants Were Awarded, by State 

Page 39 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

State 

Number of regular 

grantsa

Average number of days from 

receipt of application to award 

Vermont 1 90

Wisconsin 5 77

Source: GAO analysis of regular grant funds awarded between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003. 

a

This represents the number of regular grants for which complete information was available. There 

were a total of 14 regular grants for which we did not have complete information. 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 40 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Labor 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 41 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 42 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 43 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

Joan Mahagan (617) 788-0521 

Wayne Sylvia (617) 788-0524 

Yunsian Tai made significant contributions to this report in all aspects of 

the work. In addition, Angela Anderson collected financial and program 

oversight information from Labor headquarters and regional offices; John 

Smale, Stuart Kaufman, and William Bates assisted in designing and 

analyzing the national survey; Barbara Johnson and Paula Bonin assisted 

in data reliability assessments; Jessica Botsford and Richard Burkard 

provided legal support; and Corinna Nicolaou provided writing assistance. 

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products 

Page 44 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve 

Quality of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. 

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

Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Employment Placement 

and Training through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with 

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

13, 2004. 

National Emergency Grants: Services to Dislocated Workers Hampered 

by Delays in Grant Awards, but Labor Is Initiating Actions to Improve 

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

Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on 

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

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to 

Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and 

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

18, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to 

Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization. 

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

Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for 

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

April 25, 2003. 

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and 

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

D.C.: April 18, 2003. 

Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business 

Needs, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for 

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

Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and 

Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to 

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

Related GAO Products 
Related GAO Products 

Page 45 GAO-04-496 National Emergency Grants 

Workforce Investment Act: States’ Spending Is on Track, but Better 

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

D.C.: November 22, 2002. 

Workforce Investment Act: Interim Report on Status of Spending and 

States’ Available Funds. GAO-02-1074. Washington, D.C.: September 5, 

2002. 

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding 

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

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

(130326) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

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

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

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs