WORKFORCE 

INVESTMENT ACT

Local Areas Face 

Challenges Helping 

Employers Fill Some 

Types of Skilled Jobs

Report to Congressional Committees

December 2013

GAO-14-19

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-19, a report to 

congressional committees

December 2013

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT

Local Areas Face Challenges Helping Employers Fill 

Some Types of Skilled Jobs

Why GAO Did This Study

The economy is recovering from the 

recession, but employers still have

difficulty filling certain jobs. DOL’s 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult 

and Dislocated Worker programs are 

designed in part to help employers find 

the skilled workers they need. The

programs provide participants with 

services including job training, which 

must be for occupations that are in 

demand. However, questions have 

been raised about the extent to which 

these programs are positioned to help 

supply workers for jobs that employers 

have difficulty filling. The conference 

report accompanying the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2012 mandated

that GAO assess the Adult and 

Dislocated Worker programs. This 

report addresses (1) how local

workforce areas have identified 

occupations that are in demand and 

how they have guided participants 

toward training for them; and (2) what 

challenges local workforce areas have 

faced in helping employers fill certain 

jobs. GAO conducted a web-based 

survey of a nationally representative

sample of 200 local workforce 

investment boards (WIB), which 

oversee local workforce areas, and

used the results to create estimates 

about the population of all WIBs

nationwide. GAO also interviewed DOL 

officials and workforce organizations.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOL collect 

and disseminate information on how 

local areas have used career pathways

approaches to prepare workers for

middle-skilled jobs that employers 

have difficulty filling. DOL agreed with 

our recommendation. 

What GAO Found

Based on survey results for calendar year 2012, GAO estimates that most local 

areas used various sources of information to identify occupations that are in 

demand (i.e., available jobs and occupations that are projected to grow). Local 

areas found all of the sources of information they used to be at least moderately 

useful. To identify occupations that are in demand, GAO estimates that nearly 90

percent of local areas used state job banks and occupational projections, both of 

which are funded by the Department of Labor (DOL). All percentages presented 

on this highlights page are estimates from the survey and have a sampling error 

of no larger than plus or minus 7 percentage points. In addition, 93 percent of 

areas used at least one local initiative, such as a partnership with the local 

economic development agency, to identify such jobs. As compared to other 

sources, areas reported using local initiatives because they provided more 

detailed information and better reflected local employers’ needs. To guide 

participants toward training, most local areas required them to complete certain 

activities, such as meeting with a case manager to discuss training options (80 

percent) or completing a skills assessment (78 percent). Most local areas faced 

challenges in guiding participants toward training. Specifically, local areas faced 

challenges related to participants’ lack of financial or work supports, such as child 

care or transportation (67 percent); participants’ lack of the basic skills necessary 

even to participate in training (66 percent); difficulty finding training providers who 

could quickly adapt curricula to employers’ changing needs (62 percent); and 

high training costs (54 percent). However, in 57 percent of local areas, these 

challenges did not affect their ability to guide participants toward training. 

Local areas had difficulty helping employers fill certain jobs for a variety of 

reasons, including the low skills of some participants, according to GAO 

estimates. Eighty percent of local areas reported that employers had difficulty 

filling certain jobs, some of which can be considered “middle-skilled” jobs, such 

as welders and machinists, because they require more than a high-school 

diploma but less than a 4-year college degree. These local areas had difficulty 

supplying such workers because participants lacked relevant qualifications or the 

basic skills needed to participate in related training, among other reasons. To 

help participants improve their skills, DOL and other agencies have encouraged 

the use of career pathways approaches that combine job training with basic skills 

education and support services. According to these agencies, such approaches 

aim to enable participants to secure industry relevant certification and obtain 

employment within an occupational area and advance to higher levels of future 

education and employment in the area. However, little is known about the extent 

to which local areas are using career pathways approaches—or how they are

using these approaches—specifically to prepare participants for middle-skilled 

jobs that employers have had difficulty filling. Without information on whether and 

how local areas are using these approaches to prepare participants for such 

jobs, DOL may not be well-positioned to help local areas use these approaches 

to better meet employers’ needs.

View GAO-14-19. To view the survey and

detailed results, see GAO-14-20SP. For more 

information, contact Andrew Sherrill at (202) 

512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

Letter 1

Background 3

Local Areas Used Various Sources to Identify Demand Occupations 

and Required Participants to Complete Certain Activities before 

Entering Training 8

Local Areas Had Difficulty Helping Employers Fill Certain Jobs for 

a Variety of Reasons, Including the Low Skills of Some 

Participants 15

Conclusions 19

Recommendation 20

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 20

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 22

WIB Survey 22

WIB Interviews 25

Skills Gap Analysis 26

Appendix II Occupations That Employers Had Difficulty Filling in Calendar 

Year 2012 28

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Labor 34

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 36

Related GAO Products 37

Tables

Table 1: Sources of Labor Market Information, by Provider and 

Primary Funding Source 7

Table 2: States Selected for WIB Interviews 25

Table 3: Occupations Identified by Survey Respondents As Those 

That Employers Had Difficulty Filling in Calendar Year 

2012, by Standard Occupational Classification Code 30

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

Figures

Figure 1: Sources of Information That Local Areas Used Most to 

Identify Demand Occupations in Calendar Year 2012 9

Figure 2: Of Those Areas That Used Local Initiatives to Identify 

Demand Occupations, Percentage That Used Each 

Initiative in Calendar Year 2012 11

Figure 3: Percentage of Areas That Used WIA Funding to Support 

Each Local Initiative in Calendar Year 2012 12

Figure 4: Activities That Local Areas Required or Encouraged 

Participants to Complete Before Entering Training in 

Calendar Year 2012 13

Figure 5: Major or Moderate Challenges Most Frequently Faced by 

Local Areas in Guiding Participants to Training in 

Calendar Year 2012 14

Figure 6: Reasons Why Local Areas Had Difficulty Helping 

Employers Fill Jobs in Calendar Year 2012 16

Abbreviations

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CLASP Center for Law and Social Policy

CPS Current Population Survey

DMTF Direct Match Title File

DOL Department of Labor

Education Department of Education

ETA Employment and Training Administration

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

OES Occupational Employment Statistics

OVAE Office of Vocational and Adult Education

RFI Request for Information

SOC Standard Occupational Classification

WIA Workforce Investment Act

WIB workforce investment board

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

United States. The published product 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-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

December 2, 2013

The Honorable Tom Harkin

Chairman

The Honorable Jerry Moran

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and

Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Jack Kingston

Chairman

The Honorable Rosa DeLauro

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and

Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The economy is recovering from the recession, but employers are still 

having difficulty filling certain jobs. The Department of Labor’s (DOL) 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult and Dislocated Worker programs 

are designed to help jobseekers find employment and to help employers 

find the skilled workers they need. In program year 2011, these programs 

provided job training to over 250,000 participants, or about 13 percent of 

all WIA participants, according to DOL’s published data on participants 

who exited the programs.1 WIA requires this training to be for occupations 

that are in demand, also known as demand occupations.2

 1 According to DOL, approximately 2 million participants received employment services 

from the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and exited the programs between 

April 2011 and March 2012. Those who exited are a subset of all participants because 

some participants received services but did not yet exit the programs. These are the most 

recent published data available.

State and local 

2 For the purposes of this report, we are defining occupations that are in demand to 

include both currently available jobs and occupations that are projected to grow in the 

future. WIA does not provide a definition of occupations that are in demand. DOL officials 

told us that the agency interprets this term to mean both available jobs and occupations 

that are projected to grow, although officials said that the agency has not defined this term 

for states and local areas.
Page 2 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

workforce investment boards (WIB) are responsible for administering WIA 

activities in approximately 600 local areas across the country.3

Previous research has shown that local workforce areas identify demand 

occupations and use that information to guide participants in the WIA 

Adult and Dislocated Worker programs toward training.

To help 

local workforce areas identify demand occupations, DOL funds a variety 

of sources of labor market information that are provided by states. Local 

areas may also undertake additional initiatives to identify such jobs.

4 However, 

questions have been raised about the labor market information that 

informs these programs and the extent to which the programs are 

positioned to help supply workers for jobs that employers have had 

difficulty filling. The conference report accompanying the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 20125

To address both objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws, 

regulations, and program guidance. We also conducted a web-based 

survey of a nationally representative sample of 200 WIBs, and used the 

results of the survey to create estimates about the population of all WIBs 

nationwide.

mandated that GAO assess the Adult and 

Dislocated Worker programs. This report addresses (1) how local 

workforce areas have identified occupations that are in demand and how 

they have guided participants toward training for them; and (2) what 

challenges local workforce areas have faced in helping employers fill 

certain jobs.

6

 3 Most states have one state WIB that is responsible for overseeing multiple local WIBs. 

Some states have one statewide WIB and no local WIBs. For the purposes of this report, 

we use the term “local areas” to refer to the areas overseen by both local and statewide 

WIBs.

The survey asked questions about the following topics, in 

calendar year 2012: 1) which sources of labor market information local 

areas used to identify occupations that are in demand, and the sources 

they found most useful; 2) how they guided participants toward training, 

4 See U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General—Office of Audit. Additional 

Information Needed To Measure The Effectiveness And Return On Investment Of Training 

Services Funded Under The WIA Adult And Dislocated Worker Programs. Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 30, 2011.

5 H. R. Rep. No. 112-331, at 1121 (2011) (Conf. Rep.). 

6 In designing the sample, we did not consider indicators of the size of the local areas 

overseen by WIBs, such as population or amount of WIA funding received, because such 

data were not readily available. 
Page 3 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

and the challenges they faced in doing so; and 3) whether employers in 

their areas have had difficulty filling certain jobs, and if so, the challenges 

they have faced in helping employers fill those jobs. We did not conduct a 

skills gap analysis because reliable data were not available.7

GAO-14-20SP

This report 

does not contain all the results from the survey. The survey and a more 

complete tabulation of the results can be viewed at . We 

also interviewed DOL officials as well as representatives from national 

workforce associations and organizations with expertise in workforce 

issues. See appendix I for more information on our scope and 

methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to December 2013 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs provide employment 

services to a wide range of participants. The Adult Program serves all 

individuals age 18 and older, and the Dislocated Worker Program serves 

individuals who have been or will be terminated or laid off from 

employment, among others.8

 7 We considered conducting a skills gap analysis to assess whether there is a mismatch 

between employer needs and the skills of available workers. Officials from DOL’s Bureau 

of Labor Statistics said that the following conditions would be associated with a skills gap 

in a particular occupation: 1) jobs remain unfilled for a longer-than-normal time period, 2) 

wages are increasing, and 3) unemployment is low. However, we decided not to conduct a 

skills gap analysis as part of this study primarily because reliable data on the conditions 

associated with a skills gap were not available at the local or state levels. For a detailed 

explanation of why we did not conduct a skills gap analysis, see appendix I.

The Adult Program prioritizes certain 

8 A dislocated worker is an individual who: 1) has been terminated or laid off, or has 

received a notice of termination or layoff from employment; 2) is eligible for or has 

exhausted unemployment insurance; 3) has demonstrated an appropriate attachment to 

the workforce, but is not eligible for unemployment insurance and is unlikely to return to a 

previous industry or occupation; 4) has been terminated or laid off or received notification 

of termination or layoff from employment as a result of a permanent closure or substantial 

layoff; 5) is employed at a facility where the employer has made the general 

announcement that the facility will close within 180 days; 6) was self-employed but is 

unemployed as a result of general economic conditions in the community or because of a 

natural disaster; or 7) is a displaced homemaker. See 29 U.S.C. § 2801(9).

Background
Page 4 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

services for recipients of public assistance and other low-income 

individuals when program funds are limited.9 To allow individuals to 

participate, both programs offer supportive services such as 

transportation, childcare, housing, and needs-related payments under 

certain circumstances.10 WIA requires that the Adult and Dislocated 

Worker programs and other federally funded employment and training 

programs provide services through one-stop centers—now called 

American Job Centers—so that jobseekers and employers can find 

assistance at a single location.11

DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) administers the 

Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and oversees their 

implementation, which is carried out by states and localities. WIA requires 

that each state have one or more local workforce investment areas, each 

governed by a local workforce investment board (WIB).12 WIBs’ 

responsibilities include setting policy and overseeing service delivery for 

the local workforce area, coordinating workforce investment activities with 

economic development strategies, and developing relationships with 

employers.13 Our previous work has identified innovative collaborations 

used by some WIBs to help employers meet their needs for workers with 

certain skills, among other needs.14 WIBs also select the entities to 

operate American Job Centers and conduct oversight of the American 

Job Center network.15

 9 29 U.S.C. § 2864(d)(4)(E).

10 29 U.S.C. §§ 2864(e)(2) and 2864(e)(3). Supportive services are defined at 29 U.S.C. § 

2801(46).

11 29 U.S.C. § 2864(c). Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 36-11, 

Announcement of American Job Center Network (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2012) 

strongly encouraged states and local areas to refer to the one-stop system as the 

American Job Center network and to one-stop career centers as American Job Centers, in 

order to increase jobseeker and employer awareness of available workforce development 

resources.

12 29 U.S.C. §§ 2831 and 2832.

13 29 U.S.C. § 2832(d).

14 See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations between Workforce 

Boards and Employers Helped Meet Local Needs. GAO-12-97 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 

19, 2012).

15 29 U.S.C. § 2832(d).
Page 5 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

The Adult and Dislocated Worker programs provide participants with a 

variety of employment services. The programs provide three levels of 

service: core, intensive, and training.

• Core services include basic services such as job searches and labor 

market information, and may be accessed with or without staff 

assistance.

• Intensive services include such activities as comprehensive 

assessment and case management, which require greater staff 

involvement. Intensive services are available to participants who are 

unable to obtain or retain employment after receiving at least one core 

service.

• Training services include such activities as occupational skills or onthe-job training. In order to be eligible for training services, 

participants must: 1) be unable to obtain or retain employment after 

receiving at least one intensive service; 2) be in need of training; and 

3) have the skills and qualifications to successfully complete the 

training program, among other requirements.16

To determine whether participants need training and to assess their skills, 

WIBs may require them to complete certain activities. We previously 

found that most WIBs required participants to complete skills 

assessments or tests and gather information about the occupation for 

which they wanted training before entering a training program.17 After 

participants are determined to be eligible for training, DOL requires that 

they select approved training providers in consultation with case 

managers, but participants ultimately choose the training programs in 

which they participate.18

 16 Participants must also: 1) select a training program that is directly linked to employment 

opportunities in the local area or in another area to which the individual is willing to 

relocate, and 2) be unable to obtain grant assistance from other sources to pay training 

costs. 20 C.F.R. § 663.310. 

WIA requires that training be directly linked to 

demand occupations, which DOL interprets to include both currently 

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

Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 29, 2005).

18 20 C.F.R. § 663.440(c). 
Page 6 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

available jobs as well as occupations that are projected to grow in the 

future.19

In fiscal year 2013, the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs received a 

total of about $1.9 billion in appropriations, down from about $2.5 billion in 

fiscal year 2000 (a 24 percent reduction).20 In order to receive their full 

funding allocations, states must meet agreed upon levels of performance. 

WIA requires performance measures that gauge program results for 

jobseekers in the areas of entered employment, employment retention, 

earnings, and credential attainment.21 In addition, WIA requires measures 

of customer satisfaction for jobseekers and for employers.22 States may 

request waivers to report performance measures known as common 

measures, which do not include credential attainment.23 WIA requires 

states to negotiate performance levels with DOL and holds states 

accountable for achieving these levels by tying them to financial sanctions 

and incentive funding.24

To help local areas identify demand occupations—including both 

available jobs and occupations that are projected to grow—DOL funds a 

variety of sources of labor market information that are provided by state 

labor market information offices and state workforce agencies (see table 

1). Local areas may also use online job postings, which are funded by 

private companies and organizations, to identify demand occupations. In 

 19 29 U.S.C. § 2864(d)(4)(G)(iii).

20 Fiscal year 2000 appropriations are presented in nominal dollars and are not adjusted 

for inflation.

21 29 U.S.C. § 2871(b)(2)(A). 

22 29 U.S.C. § 2871(b)(2)(B).

23 Common performance measures were developed under an Office of Management and 

Budget initiative, which sought to unify definitions for performance across programs with 

similar goals. As of May 2013, a total of 50 states and territories had waivers to use 

common performance measures for the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs. 

24 29 U.S.C. § 2871(b)(3)(A) and (g); 20 U.S.C. § 9273. For all states—those with waivers 

and those without waivers— incentive or sanction determinations are based only on the 

following performance measures: entered employment, employment retention, and 

earnings. See Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 9-07, Revised Incentive and 

Sanction Policy for Workforce Investment Act Title IB Programs (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 

10, 2007). 

Sources of Information 

for Identifying Demand 

Occupations
Page 7 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

addition, local areas may undertake other initiatives to identify demand 

occupations.

Table 1: Sources of Labor Market Information, by Provider and Primary Funding Source

Source of labor market information Entity that provides information Entity that primarily funds information

Sources for identifying available jobs

State job banks State workforce agencies DOL (formula grants to states)a

Online job postings Private companies and organizations Private companies and organizations

Job vacancy surveys

b

State labor market information offices DOL (Workforce Information Grants to states)

Sources for identifying occupations that are projected to grow

c

Industry and occupational projections 

(including state, regional, and local 

projections)

State labor market information offices DOL (Workforce Information Grants to states)

Customized reports and tools State labor market information offices DOL (Workforce Information Grants to states)

Other labor market data (e.g., 

information about unemployment, 

wages, salaries, and skill sets)

State labor market information offices DOL

Regional labor market 

economists/analysts

d

State labor market information offices DOL e e

O*NET

(Workforce Information Grants to states)

The National Center for O*NET 

Development, operated by the North 

Carolina Department of Commerce (state 

workforce agency)

f DOL 

America’s Career InfoNet 

(part of DOL’s CareerOneStop 

website)

Minnesota Department of Employment and 

Economic Development (state workforce 

agency) g

DOL 

Source: DOL.

a Funded primarily with Wagner-Peyser Act formula funds and, to a lesser extent, WIA formula funds.

b Some states use Wagner-Peyser Act funding to support their role in providing online job postings to 

participants.

c Some states use WIA formula funds and state funds to supplement Workforce Information Grants 

from DOL.

d The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) funds national level data through Labor Market Information 

Cooperative Agreements, and ETA funds state and local data through Workforce Information Grants 

to states.

e Regional labor market analysts/economists are employed by state labor market information offices. 

DOL does not directly fund these positions, but states may use federal funding such as Workforce 

Information Grants, Wagner-Peyser Act funding, and WIA formula funds to support these personnel 

costs.

f

O*NET provides a variety of occupational information, including occupational skill requirements.

g America’s Career InfoNet provides labor market information by occupation and industry, links to 

state labor market information offices, and other career exploration tools.
Page 8 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

We estimate that a majority of local areas used various sources of 

information to identify demand occupations (see fig. 1). All but one of 

these sources—online job postings, which are funded by private 

companies and organizations—are funded primarily by DOL and provided 

by state labor market information offices or state workforce agencies. The 

sources local areas used the most were state job banks and industry and 

occupational projections. Specifically, we estimate that nearly 90 percent 

of local areas used state job banks to identify available jobs, and nearly 

90 percent of local areas used industry and occupational projections to 

identify occupations that are projected to grow.25

 25 See figure 1 for these estimates and confidence intervals. All percentage estimates 

from the survey have margins of error at the 95 percent confidence level, unless otherwise 

noted.

Local Areas Used 

Various Sources to 

Identify Demand 

Occupations and 

Required Participants 

to Complete Certain 

Activities before 

Entering Training

Most Local Areas Used

a Variety of Sources to 

Identify Demand 

Occupations
Page 9 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

Figure 1: Sources of Information That Local Areas Used Most to Identify Demand Occupations in Calendar Year 2012

Note: In some cases, the total is not the exact sum of the individual estimates due to rounding to the 

nearest whole percentage point. The estimates in the first bar graph (sources of information for 

identifying available jobs) have 95 percent confidence intervals of within plus or minus 7 percentage 

points. The estimates in the second bar graph (sources of information for identifying occupations that 

are projected to grow) have 95 percent confidence intervals of within plus or minus 8.5 percentage 

points. Additionally, all sources of information above are primarily funded by DOL, except for online 

job postings, which are funded by private companies and organizations.

a

Areas obtained this information from the state labor market information office.

b

These percentages reflect the 72 percent of local areas located in states that employed regional 

labor market analysts/economists; 28 percent of areas reported that their states did not employ such 

analysts/economists or did not know whether their states employed them.

Local areas found all of the sources of information they used to identify 

demand occupations at least moderately useful. Local areas found 

regional labor market analysts or economists the most useful of the 

sources for identifying occupations that are projected to grow, although 

they used them slightly less than industry and occupational projections, 

as shown in figure 1 above. However, 28 percent of local areas did not 
Page 10 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

have access to such analysts or economists because their states did not 

employ them or did not know whether their states employed them.26

In addition to using these sources of information, most of which are 

provided by state agencies, we estimate that 93 percent of all areas 

undertook at least one local initiative to identify demand occupations.27

DOL encourages areas to use local initiatives to identify such 

occupations. Specifically, DOL has issued guidance encouraging local 

areas to use information from employers and economic development 

partnerships, among other sources, to identify available jobs and 

occupations that are projected to grow.28 As compared to other sources of 

information, about 90 percent of areas used local initiatives for at least 

one of the following reasons:29

• They more accurately reflected the current and expected needs of 

local employers.

• They provided more detailed information.

• They provided more useful information.

Of those areas that used local initiatives, nearly all had a partnership with 

the local economic development agency (see fig. 2). For example, one 

local area used this partnership to learn about the hiring needs of 

employers that planned to locate in the area. Additionally, 90 percent of 

local areas used real-time labor market information to identify demand 

occupations.30

 26 The confidence interval for the estimate of 28 percent is 22 to 34 percent. We estimate 

that 72 percent of local areas were located in states that employed regional labor market 

analysts or economists. The confidence interval for the estimate of 72 percent is 66 to 78 

percent. 

A majority of these areas obtained such information from 

27 The confidence interval for the estimate of 93 percent is 88 to 97 percent. 

28 Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 33-11, Annual Program Guidance for 

the Program Year 2012 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult, Dislocated Worker, and 

Wagner-Peyser programs (Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2012).

29 We estimate that 90 percent of local areas used local initiatives to identify available jobs 

for at least one of these reasons. The confidence interval for the estimate of 90 percent is 

83 to 94 percent. We estimate that 92 percent of local areas used local initiatives to 

identify occupations that are projected to grow for at least one of these reasons. The 

confidence interval for the estimate of 92 percent is 86 to 96 percent.

30 Real-time labor market information aggregates and analyzes online job postings to 

provide “real-time” information about the hiring and skill needs of employers. The 

confidence interval for the estimate of 90 percent is 84 to 95 percent.
Page 11 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

the state labor market information office, state workforce agency, or state 

or local economic development agency, while about one-third purchased 

it from private companies. Of the local initiatives, areas found discussions 

or focus groups with employers about their hiring plans or skill needs 

most useful for identifying demand occupations.

Figure 2: Of Those Areas That Used Local Initiatives to Identify Demand 

Occupations, Percentage That Used Each Initiative in Calendar Year 2012

Note: This figure provides estimates for a subset of local areas, specifically, those areas that used 

local initiatives to identify demand occupations (an estimated 93 percent of areas). For real-time labor 

market information, the total is not the exact sum of the individual estimates due to rounding to the 

nearest whole percentage point. The confidence interval for the estimate of 99 percent is 95 to 100 

percent; for the estimate of 33 percent it is 26 to 39 percent; for the estimate of 58 percent it is 51 to 

64 percent; for the estimate of 90 percent it is 84 to 95 percent; for the estimate of 80 percent it is 72 

to 86 percent; and for the estimate of 62 percent it is 55 to 69 percent.

a

These local areas obtained real-time labor market information from the state labor market 

information office, state workforce agency, or state or local economic development agency.

Most of the areas that undertook local initiatives used WIA funding to 

support them (see fig. 3). Some local areas also used other funding 

sources—such as the Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser) program, 

the state workforce agency, economic development agencies, and private 

funding—to support these initiatives.
Page 12 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

Figure 3: Percentage of Areas That Used WIA Funding to Support Each Local 

Initiative in Calendar Year 2012

Note: The confidence interval for the estimate of 84 percent is 70 to 93 percent; for the first estimate 

of 73 percent (discussions or focus groups) it is 64 to 81 percent; for the second estimate of 73 

percent (partnership with the local economic development agency) it is 67 to 79 percent; and for the 

estimate of 70 percent it is 62 to 77 percent.

a

As noted above, we estimate that 33 percent of local areas that used local initiatives purchased realtime labor market information.

We estimate that, in 2012, a majority of local areas required participants 

to complete certain activities before entering a training program (see fig. 

4).31

 31 These results are similar to our findings in 2005 that most WIBs required participants to 

complete activities (such as taking skill assessments or tests and gathering information 

about the occupation for which they wanted training) to demonstrate their need for 

training. See 

For example, many local areas required participants to: 1) meet with 

case managers to discuss labor market information and training options; 

2) complete a skills or interest assessment; or 3) obtain information about 

the occupation for which they wanted training. When local areas did not 

require participants to complete these activities, they typically encouraged 

participants to complete them.

GAO-05-650.

Most Local Areas Required 

Participants to Complete 

Certain Activities Prior 

to Training
Page 13 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

Figure 4: Activities That Local Areas Required or Encouraged Participants to 

Complete Before Entering Training in Calendar Year 2012

Note: In some cases, the total is not the exact sum of the individual estimates due to rounding to the 

nearest whole percentage point. The confidence interval for the estimate of 80 percent is 73 to 86 

percent; for the estimate of 14 percent it is 9 to 21 percent; for the estimate of 95 percent it is 89 to 98 

percent; for the estimate of 78 percent it is 71 to 85 percent; for the estimate of 18 percent it is 12 to 

26 percent; for the estimate of 97 percent it is 92 to 99 percent; for the estimate of 68 percent it is 62 

to 74 percent; for the estimate of 22 percent it is 15 to 29 percent; for the estimate of 90 percent it is 

84 to 94 percent; for the estimate of 62 percent it is 56 to 69 percent; for the estimate of 29 percent it 

is 23 to 35 percent; for the estimate of 92 percent it is 86 to 96 percent; for the estimate of 52 percent

it is 46 to 59 percent; for the estimate of 34 percent it is 28 to 41 percent; and for the estimate of 87 

percent it is 80 to 92 percent.

In half of local areas, employment prospects were greater outside the 

local area than inside the area.32 When employment prospects were 

greater in neighboring areas, we estimate that 62 percent of local areas 

guided participants toward training for those jobs to a large or moderate 

extent.33

 32 In 79 percent of these areas, such employment prospects were located in neighboring 

areas. The confidence interval for the estimate of 50 percent is 44 to 57 percent; for the 

estimate of 79 percent it is 67 to 88 percent.

33 The confidence interval for the estimate of 62 percent is 49 to 75 percent.
Page 14 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

Most local areas faced challenges in guiding participants toward training, 

but were still able to guide them toward training. We estimate that twothirds of local areas faced major or moderate challenges related to (1) 

participants’ lack of financial or work supports, such as child care or 

transportation, and (2) participants’ lack of basic skills necessary to 

participate in training, such as reading and math skills (see fig. 5). In 57 

percent of local areas, however, the challenges they experienced did not 

negatively affect their ability to guide participants toward training.34 In the 

38 percent of local areas where these challenges had a negative effect, 

more than half of areas guided fewer participants toward training, and 

one-third guided fewer participants toward their first choice of training.35

Figure 5: Major or Moderate Challenges Most Frequently Faced by Local Areas in 

Guiding Participants to Training in Calendar Year 2012

Note: The confidence interval for the estimate of 67 percent is 61 to 73 percent; for the estimate of 66 

percent it is 60 to 73 percent; for the estimate of 62 percent it is 56 to 68 percent; and for the estimate 

of 54 percent it is 47 to 60 percent. This survey question also included the following response 

categories: minor challenge, not a challenge, and no opinion/don’t know.

 34 The confidence interval for the estimate of 57 percent is 50 to 63 percent.

35 Specifically, we estimate that 56 percent of these areas guided fewer participants 

toward training and 33 percent of these areas guided fewer participants toward their first 

choice of training. The confidence interval for the estimate of 38 percent is 32 to 45 

percent; for the estimate of 56 percent it is 45 to 67 percent; and for the estimate of 33 

percent it is 21 to 47 percent. 

Most Local Areas 

Overcame Challenges in 

Guiding Participants 

Toward Training
Page 15 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

Local areas cited a variety of reasons why they had difficulty helping 

employers fill certain jobs in 2012, including participants’ lack of relevant 

qualifications and basic skills, according to GAO estimates. Eighty 

percent of local areas we surveyed said that employers had difficulty 

filling jobs in certain occupations.36 Local areas most frequently cited the 

following jobs as those that employers had difficulty filling: welders, 

machinists, heath care occupations, computer occupations, and truck 

drivers (see app. II for a complete list of occupations identified by WIBs 

as those that employers had difficulty filling).37 In almost all cases, the 

WIBs we surveyed also identified these as high growth occupations in 

their local areas. According to workforce experts, some of these jobs, 

such as welders and machinists, can be considered “middle-skilled” jobs 

because they require more than a high-school diploma but less than a 4-

year college degree. Other jobs that require a 4-year degree or more—

such as some registered nurses—are considered “high-skilled” jobs. Of 

the local areas that reported that employers had difficulty filling certain 

jobs and were able to identify these jobs, 81 percent indicated that 

employers used American Job Centers to try to fill these positions.38

 36 The confidence interval for the estimate of 80 percent is 73 to 86 percent. 

Among the most common reasons why these local areas had difficulty 

supplying such workers were participants’ lack of relevant qualifications 

and lack of the basic skills needed to participate in training (see fig. 6). 

While DOL officials said that local areas should provide participants who 

37 Local areas reported the occupations that employers in their areas had difficulty filling. 

These hard-to-fill occupations are not generalizable to the national level.

38 The confidence interval for the estimate of 81 percent is 72 to 87 percent. 

Local Areas Had 

Difficulty Helping 

Employers Fill 

Certain Jobs for a 

Variety of Reasons, 

Including the Low 

Skills of Some 

Participants

Challenges in Helping Fill 

Jobs Included Participants’ 

Lack of Qualifications and 

Basic Skills
Page 16 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

lack skills and work supports with the services they need to enter training 

for middle-skilled jobs, they said it is not realistic to expect the Adult and 

Dislocated Worker programs to train low-skilled participants for highskilled positions that require advanced degrees, due to the skill level and 

length of training required. However, DOL officials noted that these 

programs do serve some middle- and high-skilled participants who obtain 

employment after receiving only core services.

Figure 6: Reasons Why Local Areas Had Difficulty Helping Employers Fill Jobs in 

Calendar Year 2012

Note: This figure provides estimates for a subset of local areas. Eighty percent of local areas we 

surveyed said that employers had difficulty filling jobs in certain occupations. Of the local areas that 

reported that employers had difficulty filling certain jobs and were able to identify these jobs, 81 

percent indicated that employers used American Job Centers to try to fill these positions. For this 

subset of local areas, this figure provides estimates of the extent to which these reasons explained 

why local areas had difficulty helping employers fill jobs. The confidence interval for the estimate of 

95 percent is 87 to 98 percent; for the estimate of 67 percent it is 59 to 75 percent; for the estimate of 

66 percent it is 58 to 74 percent; for the estimate of 59 percent it is 50 to 67 percent; for the estimate 

of 44 percent it is 35 to 52 percent; for the estimate of 37 percent it is 29 to 45 percent; for the 

estimate of 28 percent it is 19 to 39 percent; and for the estimate of 27 percent it is 18 to 38 percent.

In addition, workforce experts cited decreased funding and the lack of a 

performance measure on skill improvement as additional challenges. WIA 

funding has decreased by 24 percent since 2000, and experts we 

interviewed told us that local areas face difficult tradeoffs in making 

decisions about spreading limited training funds over a broad population 
Page 17 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

of participants. Specifically, they said that because it takes more time and 

resources to prepare low-skilled participants to enter training, local areas 

must balance helping low-skilled workers improve their skills with serving 

as many individuals as possible. In addition, experts noted that WIA does 

not currently have a performance measure to track improvements in 

participants’ basic skills.39 Workforce experts we interviewed said that 

current measures reward states and local areas for placing participants 

into employment quickly and do not reward basic skills improvements or 

progress toward a degree or certificate. As a result of these challenges, 

experts said that local areas may not guide participants toward training 

programs for middle-skilled jobs, which tend to be longer and more 

expensive than other training programs and typically require a certain 

basic skill level. However, DOL officials disagreed that WIA performance 

measures encourage local areas to place participants into employment 

quickly. Also, DOL officials cited customer choice as a reason why some 

low-skilled participants do not receive training for middle-skilled jobs. 

Officials said that, when participants select training, they consider not only 

the guidance they receive from case managers but also their own 

interests and how long they can afford to be out of the workforce.40

To help participants in WIA and other programs improve their skills, gain 

employment, and progress in a career, DOL has coordinated with the 

Departments of Education (Education) and Health and Human Services 

(HHS) to fund and provide guidance for career pathways approaches, 

which link basic skills education, occupational training, and support 

services.41

 39 Performance measures are being considered as part of WIA reauthorization proposals. 

Three of those proposals would add a performance measure on the basic skill gains of 

participants who are in an education or training program that leads to a credential or 

employment. See Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act (SKILLS Act), 

H.R. 803, 113th Cong. (2013); Workforce Investment Act of 2013, H.R. 798, 113th Cong. 

(2013); and Workforce Investment Act of 2013, S. 1356, 113th Cong. (2013).

According to these agencies, these approaches aim to enable 

individuals to secure industry relevant certification and obtain employment 

40 DOL offers “learn and earn” strategies—such as on-the-job training and registered 

apprenticeships—that allow participants to earn money while they are receiving training.

41 Specifically, DOL collaborates with Education’s Office of Vocational and Adult 

Education (OVAE) and HHS’s Administration for Children and Families. Also, Education’s 

OVAE funds the Designing Instruction for Career Pathways Initiative, which assists state 

and local education providers in developing career pathways programs for adults by 

providing technical assistance, policy briefs, and research on program effectiveness.

Little is Known About the 

Use of Career Pathways to 

Prepare Workers for 

Certain Hard-to-Fill Jobs
Page 18 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

within an occupational area and to advance to higher levels of future 

education and employment in that area. In 2010, DOL and Education 

launched the Career Pathways Initiative by providing 1-year grants to 

nine states and two tribal entities to develop these approaches. Based on 

the lessons learned from these grants, DOL has taken steps to help other 

states and local areas implement these approaches. Specifically, DOL 

has issued guidance on developing career pathways systems; provided 

technical assistance tools, such as webinars; shared promising practices; 

and maintained a Career Pathways Community of Practice website. In 

addition, DOL, Education, and HHS—as members of the Career 

Pathways Working Group—have collaborated on joint technical 

assistance efforts. For example, in 2012, DOL issued a joint letter with 

Education and HHS to encourage local areas’ use of career pathways 

approaches to help prepare low-skilled participants for employment. The 

interagency working group plans to issue a national catalog of career 

pathways toolkits in the future. DOL has also funded grants that are not 

specifically targeted at career pathways approaches but can be used for 

this purpose. In 2012, DOL awarded 26 Workforce Innovation Fund 

grants to support innovative approaches for design and delivery of 

employment and training services; 17 of the 26 grantees are using these 

grants to develop career pathways approaches, according to DOL.42

DOL and workforce experts find career pathways approaches promising, 

and efforts are underway to gather more information about their 

implementation and effectiveness. According to DOL officials and experts 

we interviewed, career pathways approaches are a promising strategy 

that state and federal agencies should adopt to support lower-skilled 

individuals. Efforts are underway to collect information about how many 

states are using career pathways approaches. DOL conducted a 

preliminary review of the extent to which states are using these 

approaches, and found that all but seven states are participating in some 

type of career pathways initiative at either the state or local level. To 

supplement the information collected in this initial review, the Career 

Pathways Working Group plans to issue a national Request for 

Information (RFI) during program year 2013 to obtain more detailed 

feedback from states and local areas on career pathways successes and 

any obstacles to implementation. In addition, HHS has contracted with 

 42 Other DOL grant programs also encourage career pathways strategies: Trade 

Adjustment Assistance and Community College Career Training Grants program and the 

H-1B Technical Skills Training Grant Program.
Page 19 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

Abt Associates Inc. to conduct a 10-year evaluation of nine innovative 

career pathways programs across the country, known as the Innovative 

Strategies for Increasing Self-Sufficiency project. This evaluation will 

measure the effects of these programs on participants’ employment, 

earnings, and other outcomes, and will also include a study of program 

implementation and operations as well as a cost-benefit analysis.43

However, little is known about the extent to which local areas are using 

career pathways approaches—or how they are using these approaches—

specifically to prepare participants for middle-skilled jobs that employers 

have difficulty filling. According to the guidance issued by the Career 

Pathways Working Group, one essential component of career pathways 

approaches is a specific focus on local workforce needs, and DOL 

officials said that these approaches are one way to prepare participants 

for middle-skilled jobs that employers have difficulty filling. Nevertheless, 

DOL and other agencies do not plan to collect and disseminate 

information on whether and how local areas are using these approaches 

to prepare participants for such jobs as part of the RFI or the evaluation of 

career pathways programs. According to federal government internal 

control standards, agencies should have information on whether their 

programs are meeting their intended objectives.44 Without information on 

whether and how local areas are using career pathways approaches to 

prepare participants for middle-skilled jobs that employers have difficulty 

filling, DOL may not be well-positioned to help local areas use these 

approaches to better meet employers’ needs.

Employers’ difficulty filling certain jobs could reasonably lead to questions 

about the labor market information that informs federal employment and 

training programs. The results from our survey, however, suggest that the 

WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs are using multiple sources of 

labor market information to guide participants toward training for both 

available jobs and occupations that are projected to grow. With regard to 

 43 This study will use a random assignment research design to evaluate the career 

pathways programs. Participants will be assigned at random to one of two groups: the 

“treatment” group that will participate in the career pathways program and the “control”

group that will not, although control group members may receive other services available 

in the community. 

44 GAO, Internal Control Standards: Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, 

GAO-01-1008G (Washington, D.C.: August 2001).

Conclusions
Page 20 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

the extent to which these programs are positioned to help supply workers 

for hard-to-fill jobs, our work suggests that the programs have difficulty 

supplying workers for certain types of middle-skilled jobs due to the low 

skill level of some program participants, among other reasons. While it 

appears that these participants are receiving training, their lack of basic 

skills may be an obstacle to obtaining training that would prepare them for 

the middle-skilled jobs that employers are having difficulty filling. Further, 

both DOL and workforce experts emphasized that this problem exists in a 

larger context, and that helping participants improve their basic skills can

involve a considerable investment of time and resources.

Given that a variety of factors affect whether skilled jobs are filled, it may 

not be realistic to expect the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs to 

fully meet all employers’ needs, but these programs can play an important 

role. DOL has made efforts to help improve participants’ skills through 

career pathways approaches and plans to gather more information about 

their implementation. Despite these efforts, our findings suggest that 

there are some local areas in which employers’ needs for certain types of 

middle-skilled workers are not being met. Without additional information—

beyond what it already plans to collect—on whether and how local areas 

are using career pathways approaches to prepare participants for the 

types of middle-skilled jobs that employers are having difficulty filling, 

DOL may not be well-positioned to help local areas use these approaches 

to better meet employers’ needs.

To help local areas better meet employers’ needs for skilled workers, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Labor:

• collect information on the use of career pathways approaches by local 

areas specifically to prepare workers for the types of middle-skilled 

jobs that employers have difficulty filling; and

• to the extent such approaches are being used, disseminate 

information about them, such as implementation challenges, 

strategies, and results.

We provided a draft of this report and the e-supplement containing our 

detailed survey results to the Secretary of Labor for review and comment.

DOL provided a written response (see app. III). DOL agreed with our 

recommendation and did not provide any comments on the e-supplement. 

Recommendation

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 21 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

Specifically, DOL’s response noted that the agency is committed to 

promoting effective labor market information resources and using career 

pathways approaches to prepare workers for career advancement and to 

help employers gain a skilled workforce. DOL agreed that there is value in 

learning more about how local areas are using career pathways 

approaches. To identify promising career pathways approaches used by 

local areas, DOL plans to (1) leverage existing investments in the 

Workforce Innovation Fund and other DOL initiatives; (2) continue to 

engage with federal and non-federal partners through the work of the 

interagency Career Pathways Working Group; and (3) widely disseminate 

information learned from studying these approaches through DOL’s 

career pathways Community of Practice, other communication vehicles,

and technical assistance activities, as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees and the Secretary of Labor. In addition, the report is available 

at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

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

me at (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. 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 key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix IV.

Andrew Sherrill

Director

Education, Workforce,

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

Methodology

Page 22 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

Our review focused on: 1) how local workforce areas have identified 

occupations that are in demand and how they have guided participants 

toward training for them; and 2) what challenges local workforce areas 

have faced in helping employers fill certain jobs.

To address both objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws and 

regulations, as well as the Department of Labor’s (DOL) guidance to 

states and local workforce areas. We also conducted a web-based survey 

of a nationally representative sample of 200 workforce investment boards 

(WIB) and interviewed nine WIBs that were not part of our survey sample 

(see WIB Survey and WIB Interviews below). In addition, we interviewed 

DOL officials as well as representatives from the National Association of 

Workforce Boards, the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, 

and the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. To address the 

challenges local areas face in helping employers fill certain jobs, we also 

interviewed representatives from the National Skills Coalition and the 

Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). We did not conduct a skills 

gap analysis as part of this study primarily because reliable data on the 

conditions associated with a skills gap were not available at the local or 

state levels (see Skills Gap Analysis below).

To address both objectives, we conducted a web-based survey of a 

nationally representative sample of 200 WIBs. The questionnaire included 

questions about which sources of labor market information local areas 

used to identify demand occupations, the sources they found most useful, 

how they guided participants toward training, and the challenges they 

faced in guiding participants toward training in calendar year 2012. In 

addition, we asked respondents whether employers in their areas have 

had difficulty filling certain jobs, and if so, the challenges they have 

experienced in helping employers fill those jobs.

We selected a stratified random probability sample from DOL’s list of all 

578 WIBs nationwide as of November 2012, which included both local 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

WIB Survey

Design and 

Implementation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 23 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

and statewide WIBs.1 With this probability sample, each member of the 

study population had a nonzero probability of being included, and that 

probability could be computed for any member. We stratified the 

population into 10 groups based on U.S. Census Bureau regions to 

ensure geographic distribution.2

To minimize errors arising from differences in how questions might be 

interpreted and to reduce variability in responses that should be 

qualitatively the same, we conducted pretests with four local WIBs and 

one statewide WIB over the telephone. To ensure that we obtained a 

variety of perspectives on our survey, we selected WIBs with diversity on 

the following criteria: 1) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) 

region, 2) whether the WIB was located in an urban or rural area, and 3) 

state and local unemployment rate. Based on feedback from these 

pretests, we revised the questionnaire in order to improve the clarity of 

the questions. An independent survey specialist within GAO also 

reviewed a draft of the questionnaire prior to its administration. In 

addition, we asked knowledgeable DOL officials to comment on the 

questionnaire and incorporated their comments as appropriate.

Each sample element was subsequently 

weighted in the analysis to account statistically for all the members of the 

population, including those who were not selected. In designing the 

sample, we did not consider indicators of the size of the local areas 

overseen by WIBs, such as population or amount of WIA funding received 

because such data were not readily available. Our sample included 195 

local WIBs and 5 statewide WIBs.

After completing the pretests, we administered the survey. On March 7, 

2013, we sent an e-mail announcement of the questionnaire to executive 

directors and other knowledgeable representatives of the WIBs in our 

sample, notifying them that our online questionnaire would be activated 

within a week. On March 13, 2013, we sent a second e-mail message to 

these WIB representatives in which we informed them that the 

 1 DOL’s list included WIBs in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the following U.S. 

territories: the Federal States of Micronesia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto 

Rico, and the Virgin Islands. As previously noted, most states have one state WIB that is 

responsible for overseeing multiple local WIBs. Some states have one statewide WIB and 

no local WIBs.

2 We stratified the population into the following 10 U.S. Census Bureau regions: New 

England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, West North Central, South Atlantic, East 

South Central, West South Central, Mountain, Pacific, and U.S. Territories. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 24 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

questionnaire was available online and provided them with unique 

passwords and usernames. We also followed up by telephone and e-mail 

with these WIB representatives as needed to clarify their survey 

responses. We collected responses through April 15, 2013. We received 

completed questionnaires from 148 WIBs, for a 74 percent unweighted 

response rate.3 Detailed survey results are available at: GAO-14-20SP.

We used standard descriptive statistics to analyze responses to the 

questionnaire. All estimates based on the survey results are subject to 

sampling error. Because we followed a probability procedure based on 

random selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples 

that we might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided 

different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our 

particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is the 

interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of 

the samples we could have drawn. We used the results of the survey to 

create estimates about the population of all WIBs nationwide. All 

percentage estimates from the survey have their sampling margins of 

error calculated at the 95 percent level of confidence.

To minimize nonsampling errors, and to enhance data quality, we 

employed recognized survey design practices in the development of the 

questionnaire and in the collection, processing, and analysis of the survey 

data. For instance, as previously mentioned, we pretested the 

questionnaire with WIBs to minimize errors arising from differences in 

how questions might be interpreted and to reduce variability in responses 

that should be qualitatively the same. We further reviewed the survey to 

ensure the ordering of survey sections was appropriate and that the 

questions within each section were clearly stated and easy to 

comprehend. To reduce nonresponse, another source of nonsampling 

error, we followed up by telephone and e-mail with WIB representatives 

who had not responded to the survey to encourage them to complete it. In 

reviewing the survey data, we performed automated checks to identify 

inappropriate answers. We further reviewed the data for missing or 

ambiguous responses and followed up with WIB representatives when 

necessary to clarify their responses. On the basis of our application of 

 3 The weighted response rate was 73.3 percent.

Analysis of Responses 

and Data Quality
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 25 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

recognized survey design practices and follow-up procedures, we 

determined that the data were of sufficient quality for our purposes.

Concurrently with our survey, we interviewed nine WIBs that were not 

part of our survey sample to gather in-depth information about selected 

survey topics. To select WIBs for interviews, we selected five states with 

diversity regarding the following criteria: 1) state unemployment rate, 2) 

geography, and 3) whether DOL officials identified the state as having 

promising practices in using labor market information to guide participants 

toward training. In applying these criteria, we ensured that we selected 

one state with a statewide WIB (see table 2).

Table 2: States Selected for WIB Interviews 

State

Statewide 

WIB

Unemployment rate in 

November 2012 (as 

compared to national 

average of 7.7 percent)

Geography 

(ETA region)

Identified by 

DOL as 

having 

promising 

practices

California No Above average Region 6 Yes

Michigan No Above average Region 5 No

New Jersey No Above average Region 1 Yes

Virginia No Below average Region 2 No

Wyoming Yes Below average Region 4 No

Source: GAO analysis of information from ETA and data from DOL’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.

We then randomly selected two WIBs in each of the four states with local 

WIBs (California, Michigan, New Jersey, and Virginia). In each of these 

states, we asked representatives of the state WIB to classify each local 

WIB in their state as either primarily urban or primarily rural.4

 4 We defined “primarily urban” WIBs as those that have more urban than rural American 

Job Centers in their local areas, and “primarily rural” WIBs as those that have more rural 

than urban American Job Centers in their local areas.

We then 

randomly selected one primarily urban and one primarily rural WIB in 

each state to interview, excluding those that were part of our survey 

WIB Interviews
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 26 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

sample.5 We interviewed a total of eight local WIBs and one statewide 

WIB. Of the eight local WIBs, five were primarily urban and three were 

primarily rural.6

We did not conduct a skills gap analysis as part of this study primarily 

because reliable data on the conditions associated with a skills gap were 

not available at the local or state levels. According to officials from DOL’s 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the following conditions would be 

associated with a skills gap in a particular occupation: 1) jobs remain 

unfilled for a longer-than-normal time period, 2) wages are increasing, 

and 3) unemployment is low. We explored the possibility of using existing 

datasets to identify occupations that have rising wages and low 

unemployment rates, and then asking the WIBs we surveyed whether 

employers in their local areas had difficulty filling these jobs. However, we 

concluded that reliable data on occupational unemployment rates are only 

available on the national level. Because national data may not reflect 

local labor market conditions, we did not incorporate such data into our 

survey. Instead, we asked the WIBs we surveyed to list occupations that 

employers in their area had difficulty filling and then coded their 

responses to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes. For 

more information on the occupational coding, see appendix II.

Specifically, BLS’ Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program 

provides data on employment and wages by occupation, but officials told 

us that local-level OES data on occupational wage growth may not be 

reliable, and noted that data on occupational unemployment rates are not 

available at the local level.7

 5 For the urban WIB in Michigan, we randomly selected a WIB from the subgroup of urban 

WIBs that were part of the Workforce Intelligence Network, a consortium of community 

colleges, WIBs, and economic development partners that works with employers to identify 

and respond to their employment needs.

In addition, we determined that state-level 

data on occupational unemployment rates are not sufficiently reliable for 

our purposes. Specifically, we were unable to use state-level data from 

the Current Population Survey (CPS) to identify occupations with lower 

6 New Jersey officials told us that all the WIBs in their state were primarily urban. As a 

result, we randomly selected two primarily urban WIBs to interview in this state.

7 BLS officials noted that OES data are more reliable at the state or national level than at 

the local level.

Skills Gap Analysis
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 27 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

than average unemployment rates because the standard error associated 

with these estimates was over 20 percent in states with small 

populations.8

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to December 2013 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

While data from online job openings—such as that 

published by The Conference Board—are used by some researchers to 

estimate state-level unemployment by broad occupational categories, 

these data are not available at the local level, and the reliability and 

validity of the data is not known.

 8 The standard errors associated with regional estimates of unemployment rates by 

occupation from the CPS were also over 20 percent for some occupations.
Appendix II: Occupations That Employers Had 

Difficulty Filling in Calendar Year 2012

Page 28 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

Our web-based survey of 200 workforce investment boards (WIB) 

included a question asking if employers in their local area had difficulty 

filling jobs in certain occupations in calendar year 2012 (see appendix I 

for more information on the survey’s methodology). If WIBs answered 

yes, they were asked to list up to five occupations that employers had 

difficulty filling in open-ended boxes and also to indicate if the WIB 

considered each occupation to be high growth in its local area. A total of 

110 WIBs listed one occupation that was difficult to fill, 95 WIBs listed 2 

occupations, 70 WIBs listed 3 occupations, 47 WIBs listed 4 occupations, 

and 32 WIBs listed 5 occupations. We coded these open-ended 

responses to the 2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 

codes. The 2010 SOC system is used by federal statistical agencies to 

classify workers into occupational categories for the purpose of collecting, 

calculating, or disseminating data.1

In order to code the survey responses to the most appropriate SOC code, 

we searched the SOC titles or definitions or the related Direct Match Title 

File (DMTF)2

Some survey responses resulted in multiple matches at the detailed SOC 

level. If all of the matches were among related occupations, the response 

was coded at the SOC level that incorporated all of the title matches. For 

example, a survey response of web designer and programmer matched 

to several detailed occupations that could be rolled up into the minor 

group of computer occupations.

on keywords or phrases provided in the open-ended survey 

responses. Survey responses were coded to the most detailed SOC code 

allowable based on the search results. In many cases, there was a oneto-one match at the detailed SOC level for many detailed occupations, 

including registered nurses, welders, and machinists. Survey responses 

that had a one-to-one match at a broad, minor group, or major group 

SOC level were coded at that higher level, including engineers and 

driver/sales workers and truck drivers.

 1 The SOC system contains 840 detailed occupations according to its website. Detailed 

occupations in the SOC that have similar job duties, and in some cases skills, education, 

and/or training, are grouped together to form 461 broad occupations, 97 minor groups, 

and 23 major groups. Information on the SOC can be found at www.bls.gov/soc.

2 The DMTF lists associated job titles for detailed SOC occupations. Each of these titles is 

a direct match to a single SOC occupation. All workers with a job title listed in the DMTF 

are classified in only one detailed SOC occupation code.

Appendix II: Occupations That Employers 

Had Difficulty Filling in Calendar Year 2012
Appendix II: Occupations That Employers Had 

Difficulty Filling in Calendar Year 2012

Page 29 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

Some survey responses matched to multiple detailed occupations that 

could not be rolled up to a higher SOC level. For example, a survey 

response of accounting matched to accountants and auditors which is a 

business and financial occupation, and also to bookkeeping, accounting, 

and auditing clerks which is an office and administrative support 

occupation. Responses were coded to more than one SOC code if May 

2012 Occupational Employment Survey data indicated that workers were 

employed in all of the matched occupations in the metropolitan statistical 

area that contained the WIB. The most codes that were assigned to one 

survey response were two codes. Of the 354 survey responses that were 

coded, only 17 responses were assigned two SOC codes resulting in a 

total of 371 SOC codes assigned.

Survey respondents frequently cited manufacturing (15) or advanced 

manufacturing (14), which are considered industries,3

A second analyst reviewed the SOC code matches and codes assigned 

by the first analyst to see if the assigned codes had face validity. In cases 

where there was disagreement or additional information was needed, the 

two analysts met to reconcile differences. A third analyst independently 

verified the counts of the codes listed in table 3 below. The number of 

coded occupations represents those most frequently cited by WIBs that 

responded to the survey question and cannot be generalized beyond that 

population.

not occupations, 

and matched to multiple SOC codes in different occupational groups. We 

created separate categories for these two responses in order to preserve 

the specificity of these responses given the relatively large number of 

survey responses where WIBs indicated these jobs were difficult to fill. 

Similarly, we created a separate code for the 20 responses that just 

stated health care without specifying an occupation, and also for the 7 

responses that just stated nurse without specifying registered nurse or 

licensed practical nurse. Other survey responses that were vague or 

could not otherwise be matched to SOC occupations were coded as 

unknown.

 3 Manufacturing is classified as sectors 31-33 in the North American Industrial 

Classification System.
Appendix II: Occupations That Employers Had 

Difficulty Filling in Calendar Year 2012

Page 30 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

Table 3: Occupations Identified by Survey Respondents As Those That Employers Had Difficulty Filling in Calendar Year 

2012, by Standard Occupational Classification Code

2010 Standard 

Occupational 

Classification 

(SOC) Code SOC Title 

Number of coded 

occupations that 

employers had 

difficulty filling

Number of coded 

occupations 

considered to be 

high growth

11-0000 Management Occupations 2 0

11-3031 Financial Managers 1 0

11-9151 Social and Community Service Managers 1 0

13-0000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations 5 4

13-1111 Management Analysts 1 1

13-1161 Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists 1 1

13-2011 Accountants and Auditors 3 2

15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations 40 37

15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations, unspecifieda 1 1

15-1100 Computer Occupations, unspecifiedb 27 25

15-1121 Computer Systems Analysts 2 2

15-1130 Software Developers and Programmers, unspecifieda 2 2

15-1131 Computer Programmers 5 4

15-1132 Software Developers, Applications 1 1

15-1151 Computer User Support Specialists 2 2

17-0000 Architecture and Engineering Occupations 21 20

17-0000 Architecture and Engineering Occupations, unspecifiedc 11 10

17-2000 Engineers, unspecifieda 7 7

17-2112 Industrial Engineers 1 1

17-3021 Aerospace Engineering and Operations Technicians 2 2

19-0000 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 2 0

19-1020 Biological Scientists, unspecified 1 a 0

19-1031 Conservation Scientists 1 0

21-0000 Community and Social Service Occupations 1 0

21-1012 Educational, Guidance, School, and Vocational Counselors 1 0

25-0000 Education, Training, and Library Occupations 2 1

25-0000 Education, Training, and Library Occupations, unspecified 1 a 1

25-2000 Preschool, Primary, Secondary, and Special Education School 

Teachers, unspecified

1 a 0

27-0000 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations 1 1

27-1021 Commercial and Industrial Designers 1 1

29-0000 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 39 35

29-0000 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations, unspecified 1 a 1
Appendix II: Occupations That Employers Had 

Difficulty Filling in Calendar Year 2012

Page 31 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

2010 Standard 

Occupational 

Classification 

(SOC) Code SOC Title 

Number of coded 

occupations that 

employers had 

difficulty filling

Number of coded 

occupations 

considered to be 

high growth

29-1051 Pharmacists 3 2

29-1060 Physicians and Surgeons, unspecified 2 a 1

29-1120 Therapists, unspecified 1 1

29-1122 Occupational Therapists 1 1

29-1126 Respiratory Therapists 2 1

29-1141 Registered Nurses 15 15

29-2011 Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technologists 1 1

29-2012 Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technicians 2 2

29-2034 Radiologic Technologists 1 1

29-2041 Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics 1 0

29-2052 Pharmacy Technicians 1 1

29-2061 Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses 3 3

29-2071 Medical Records and Health Information Technicians 5 5

31-0000 Healthcare Support Occupations 9 8

31-1010 Nursing, Psychiatric, and Home Health Aides, unspecified 2 a 2

31-1014 Nursing Assistants 4 3

31-2011 Occupational Therapy Assistants 1 1

31-2021 Physical Therapist Assistants 2 2

N/A Healthcare, unspecified 20 d 20

N/A Nurses, unspecified 7 d 6

35-0000 Food Preparation and Serving-Related Occupations 3 1

35-0000 Food Preparation and Serving-Related Occupations, unspecified 3 a 1

37-0000 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 1 0

37-2012 Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners 1 0

41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations 6 5

41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations, unspecified 2 a 2

41-2000 Retail Sales Workers, unspecified 2 a 2

41-2031 Retail Salespersons 1 0

41-3031 Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services Sales Agents 1 1

43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations 13 8

43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations, unspecified 4 a 2

43-3031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks 3 2

43-4051 Customer Service Representatives 4 2

43-5000 Material Recording, Scheduling, Dispatching, and Distributing 

Workers, unspecified

1 a 1
Appendix II: Occupations That Employers Had 

Difficulty Filling in Calendar Year 2012

Page 32 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

2010 Standard 

Occupational 

Classification 

(SOC) Code SOC Title 

Number of coded 

occupations that 

employers had 

difficulty filling

Number of coded 

occupations 

considered to be 

high growth

43-6011 Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants 1 1

47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations 12 12

47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations, unspecified 4 a 4

47-2000 Construction Trades Workers, unspecified 2 a 2

47-2111 Electricians 5 5

47-5071 Roustabouts, Oil and Gas 1 1

49-0000 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 23 22

49-0000 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations, unspecified 4 a 3

49-3031 Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine Specialists 1 1

49-9021 Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics and 

Installers

1 1

49-9040 Industrial Machinery Installation, Repair, and Maintenance 

Workers, unspecified

15 a 15

49-9041 Industrial Machinery Mechanics 1 1

49-9071 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General 1 1

51-0000 Production Occupations 98 92

51-0000 Production Occupations, unspecified 5 a 4

51-2000 Assemblers and Fabricators, unspecified 1 a 1

51-2092 Team Assemblers 1 1

51-4000 Metal Workers and Plastic Workers, unspecified 5 a 5

51-4011 Computer-Controlled Machine Tool Operators, Metal and Plastic 9 7

51-4012 Computer Numerically Controlled Machine Tool Programmers, 

Metal and Plastic

5 5

51-4041 Machinists 34 33

51-4121 Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers 37 35

51-6031 Sewing Machine Operators 1 1

53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 23 23

53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations, unspecified 2 a 2

53-3030 Driver/Sales Workers and Truck Drivers, unspecifieda 19 19

53-3032 Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers 1 1

53-7000 Material Moving Workers, unspecified 1 a 1

N/A Manufacturing, unspecified 15 d 15

N/A Advanced manufacturing, unspecified 14 d 13

N/A Unknown 14 e 13

Grand Total 371 336

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
Appendix II: Occupations That Employers Had 

Difficulty Filling in Calendar Year 2012

Page 33 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

a

SOC titles that are listed as unspecified indicate those survey responses that could only be coded at 

a broad, minor group, or major group level.

b

Survey responses that stated information technology were coded as computer occupations.

c

Of the 11 survey responses coded as architecture and engineering occupations, 10 responses 

specifically stated “engineering,” which could include both engineers and engineering technicians. 

These responses were coded at the major group level that incorporated both engineers and 

engineering technicians.

d

This is not a SOC title. However, we coded survey responses that specifically stated the title listed in 

the table because of the relatively large number of WIBs that provided that response.

e

Survey responses that were vague or could not otherwise be matched to SOC occupations were 

coded as unknown.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 34 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Labor
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Labor

Page 35 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 36 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

Andrew Sherrill, (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Patrick DiBattista (Assistant 

Director), Caitlin Croake, Hedieh Fusfield, Linda Siegel, and Paul Wright 

made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were 

Carl Barden, Jessica Botsford, Ted Burik, David Chrisinger, David 

Dornisch, Jill Lacey, Kathy Leslie, Mimi Nguyen, and Rhiannon Patterson.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 37 GAO-14-19 Workforce Investment Act

Workforce Investment Act: DOL Should Do More to Improve the Quality 

of Participant Data. GAO-14-4. (Washington, D.C.: December 2013).

Workforce Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations between Workforce 

Boards and Employers Helped Meet Local Needs. GAO-12-97. 

(Washington, D.C.: January 19, 2012).

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

Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help Gauge 

Employer Involvement. GAO-07-167. (Washington, D.C.: December 22, 

2006).

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

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

(Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005).

Labor Market Information: Trends and Issues in Funding of State 

Programs. GAO-03-336. (Washington, D.C.: December 20, 2002).

Related GAO Products

(131192)
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.