United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

EMPLOYMENT AND 

TRAINING PROGRAM 

GRANTS 

Evaluating Impact and 

Enhancing Monitoring 

Would Improve 

Accountability 

May 2008 

 

GAO-08-486 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

May 2008

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM 

GRANTS

Evaluating Impact and Enhancing Monitoring Would 

Improve Accountability Highlights of GAO-08-486, a report to 

congressional requesters 

Since 2001, Labor has spent nearly 

$900 million on three workforce

employment and training grant

initiatives: High Growth Job 

Training Initiative (High Growth),

Community-Based Job Training 

Initiative (Community Based), and 

the Workforce Innovation in

Regional Economic Development 

(WIRED). GAO was asked to

examine (1) the intent of the grant

initiatives and the extent to which

Labor will be able to assess their 

effects, (2) the extent to which the 

process used competition, was 

adequately documented, and 

included key players, and (3) what 

Labor is doing to monitor 

individual grantee compliance with 

grant requirements. To answer

these questions, GAO obtained

from Labor a list of grants for fiscal 

years 2001 through 2007, and 

reviewed relevant laws and Labor’s

internal grant award procedures. 

GAO interviewed grantees, and 

state and local workforce officials 

in seven states where grantees

were located, Labor officials, and 

subject matter experts. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Labor take

steps to ensure that it can evaluate

the initiatives’ impact, documents 

compliance with statutory program 

requirements for noncompetitive

grant awards, and develops and 

implements a risk-based

monitoring approach for WIRED 

grants. Labor said that it either had 

taken initial steps or planned to 

take steps to address these issues. 

Because these efforts were either

preliminary or planned, GAO

continues to stand by the 

recommendations. 

According to Labor officials, the grant initiatives were designed to shift the 

focus of the public workforce system toward the training and employment 

needs of high-growth, in-demand industries, but Labor will be challenged to 

assess their impact. Under the initiatives, Labor awarded 349 grants totaling 

almost $900 million to foster this change. However, the grant initiatives were 

not fully integrated into Labor’s strategic plan or overall research agenda; 

therefore, it is unclear what criteria Labor will use to evaluate their 

effectiveness. Labor lacks data that will allow it to compare outcomes for 

grant-funded services to those of other federally funded employment and 

training services. 

While grants under all three initiatives are now awarded competitively, the 

initial noncompetitive process for High Growth grants was not adequately 

documented and did not include key players. Community Based and WIRED 

grants have always been awarded competitively, but more than 80 percent of 

High Growth grants were awarded without competition. Labor began 

awarding some High Growth grants competitively in 2005 and Congress 

required Labor to award certain grants competitively in fiscal years 2007 and 

2008. This requirement applies only to those years. Labor could not document 

criteria used to select the noncompetitive High Growth grants or whether 

these grants met internal or statutory requirements. Labor has taken steps to 

strengthen the noncompetitive process, but these procedures do not explicitly 

require documentation of compliance with statutory program requirements. 

Labor’s process for identifying solutions for industry workforce challenges did 

not include the vast majority of local workforce investment boards, which 

oversee local employment and training services. 

Labor provides some monitoring for grantees under all three initiatives and 

uses a risk-based monitoring approach for the High Growth and Community 

Based grants, but not for WIRED. Labor has a process to address findings 

from single audit reports, but its inspector general found problems with 

Labor’s follow up on the completion of these audits for its grantees in general 

and recommended that Labor put procedures in place to do so. Labor 

provides technical assistance for the three initiatives and spent $16 million on

contracts to help offer this support. 

Number of Grants and Funds Awarded Competitively and Noncompetitively, Fiscal Years 

2001- 2007 (Dollars in millions) 

Grant 

Initiative 

Number of

grants

Competitively 

awarded amount

Noncompetitively 

awarded amount

Totals by grant 

initiative

High Growth 166 $31.8 $263.8 $295.6

Community 

Based 142 250.0 0 250.0

WIRED 41 324.0 0 324.0

 Total 349 $605.8 $263.8 $869.6

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data. Note: Total dollar amount varies from Labor’s reported figure due to rounding. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-486. 

For more information, contact George Scott 

(202)512-7215 scottg@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 6

Grants Are Intended to Change the Workforce System, but Labor 

Will Be Challenged to Evaluate Their Impact 9 

The Initial Noncompetitive Process Was Not Adequately 

Documented and Did Not Include Key Players 14 

Labor Uses a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach for High Growth 

and Community Based Grants but Not for WIRED Grants 22 

Conclusions 26

Recommendations for Executive Action 27 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 30 

Appendix II High Growth, Community Based, and WIRED 

Grantees through September 30, 2007, by 

Initiative and State 33 

Appendix III Department of Labor Technical Assistance 

Contracts 46 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Labor 47 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Acknowledgments 53 

Related GAO Products 54 

Page i GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Tables 

Table 1: Total Number and Amount of Grants Awarded by Labor, 

2001-2007 10

Table 2: The Number of High Growth Grants and Funds Awarded 

Competitively and Noncompetitively between Fiscal Years 

2001 and 2007 14 

Table 3: Industry Sector Solutions Forums and the Number of 

Participants 20

Table 4 Status of Risk-Based Monitored Grants as of September 30, 

2007 

Table 5: High Growth Grantees 33 

Table 6: Community Based Grantees 40 

Table 7: WIRED Grantees 44 

Table 8: Department of Labor Technical Assistance Contracts

Related to High Growth, Community Based and WIRED 

Grant Initiatives 46 

Figure 

Figure 1: Number of Workforce Investment Boards and States with 

Participants at Solutions Forums 19 

Abbreviations 

ACWIA American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement 

 Act 

ETA Employment and Training Administration 

WIA Workforce Investment Act 

WIRED Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development 

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 ii GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

May 7, 2008

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Chairman 

The Honorable Michael B. Enzi 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

 and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Michael B. Enzi 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

 and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Tom Harkin 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Labor, 

Health and Human Services, Education, 

 and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Subcommittee on Labor, 

Health and Human Services, Education, 

 and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

Chair 

Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

 and Pensions 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

Chair 

Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

 and Pensions 

United States Senate 

Federally funded training and employment services are delivered through 

what is known as the one-stop system, which was developed under the 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 and is governed by state and 

local workforce investment boards. Sixteen categories of programs, 

funded by four federal agencies, deliver their services through this system. 

In large part, program performance is measured by collecting standard 

measures on the outcomes of individuals who use these services. Under 

WIA, the Department of Labor (Labor) has general responsibility and 

oversight of the one-stop system. 

Federally funded training and employment services are delivered through 

what is known as the one-stop system, which was developed under the 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 and is governed by state and 

local workforce investment boards. Sixteen categories of programs, 

funded by four federal agencies, deliver their services through this system. 

In large part, program performance is measured by collecting standard 

measures on the outcomes of individuals who use these services. Under 

WIA, the Department of Labor (Labor) has general responsibility and 

oversight of the one-stop system. 

Since 2001, Labor has spent almost $900 million on three employment and 

training grant initiatives to address what Labor perceived as shortcomings 

in the one-stop service delivery system: the High Growth Job Training 

Initiative (High Growth) beginning in 2001, the Community Based Job 

Training Initiative (Community Based) beginning in 2005, and the 

Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED) 

Since 2001, Labor has spent almost $900 million on three employment and 

training grant initiatives to address what Labor perceived as shortcomings 

in the one-stop service delivery system: the High Growth Job Training 

Initiative (High Growth) beginning in 2001, the Community Based Job 

Training Initiative (Community Based) beginning in 2005, and the 

Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED) 

Page 1 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
initiative beginning in 2006. In 2005 Congress expressed interest in how 

Labor was awarding the High Growth grants and instituted a number of 

reporting requirements, including a justification for sole source awards. 

Given the size of the investment and the interest in noncompetitive 

awards, we were asked to examine: (1) the intent of the grant initiatives 

and the extent to which Labor will be able to assess their effects; (2) the 

extent to which the process used competition, was adequately 

documented, and included key players; and (3) what Labor is doing to 

monitor individual grantee compliance with grant requirements. 

To determine the intent of the grant initiatives and the extent to which 

Labor will be able to assess their effects, we reviewed grant applications, 

grantee quarterly reports, Labor’s strategic plan, and documents related to

evaluations of the initiatives and their purpose. We obtained a list of all 

High Growth, Community Based, and WIRED grants from Labor for fiscal 

year 2001, the first year High Growth grants were awarded, through fiscal

year 2007. We assessed the reliability of these data by (1) reviewing the 

data for obvious errors and completeness, (2) reviewing related 

documentation, and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about 

the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of this report. We also interviewed relevant Labor officials and 

persons with recognized workforce and training expertise. To determine 

the extent to which the process used competition, was adequately 

documented, and included key players, we reviewed relevant laws, Labor’s 

internal procedures for awarding grants, and Labor’s inspector general’s

report on High Growth grants. Out of a universe of about 340 grantees 

provided by Labor at the time of our review, we selected 8 for in-depth 

study. These were selected because each grant exceeded $1 million, and 

they represented the range of grant types. These grantees were located in

seven states: Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, 

New York, and Washington. For each grantee, we conducted semistructured interviews and reviewed each grantee’s application and recent 

quarterly reports. We also interviewed state and local workforce officials 

in these states. To address what Labor is doing to monitor the 

performance of grantees, we reviewed Labor’s monitoring procedures, six 

grantee monitoring reports provided by Labor as examples, and the single 

audit of a grantee we contacted. We also reviewed a list of High Growth 

and Community Based grants that had been monitored by Labor. See 

appendix I for a more detailed discussion of the scope and methodology. 

We conducted our work from May 2007 to May 2008 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Page 2 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
According to Labor officials, the grant initiatives were designed to change

the focus of the public workforce system to emphasize the employment 

and training needs of high-growth, high-demand industries, but Labor will 

be challenged to assess their impact because it did not plan well at the

outset to identify performance goals and collect data comparable to those 

it collects from other programs. For the three grant initiatives, Labor 

awarded 349 grants totaling almost $900 million intended to identify the 

workforce and training needs of growing, high-demand industries; engage 

workforce, industry, and educational partners to develop innovative 

solutions to workforce challenges; leverage a wide array of resources to 

fund the solutions; and integrate workforce and economic development to 

transform regional economies. While Labor said the three grant initiatives

were necessary to shift the focus of the workforce investment system, 

experts said that some state and local workforce boards were already 

pursuing strategies focusing on high-growth, high-demand industries, but 

there was little consensus on the extent to which this was occurring. In 

addition, experts identified a number of systematic factors that might 

explain why workforce boards face challenges in pursuing such strategies

(for example, statutory requirements to target services to certain groups of

workers). Beyond the question of how extensive such practices were, 

Labor officials said that a number of indicators show the initiatives are 

changing the system in line with their intended goals (for example, an 

increased focus on workforce challenges and solutions at workforce 

system conferences). However, 7 years after awarding the first grant, 

Labor will be challenged to evaluate their effect. These grant initiatives 

were not fully integrated into either Labor’s strategic plan or its overall 

research agenda at the outset; therefore, it is unclear what criteria Labor 

will use to evaluate their effectiveness. Labor is working to require 

grantees to collect the same data on performance outcomes, called 

common measures, that are used to evaluate outcomes for individuals 

served by other programs. Comparable outcome data are essential to 

assessing the impact of these initiatives because without it Labor will lack 

a common point of comparison. 

Results in Brief 

While Labor now awards grants under all three grant initiatives

competitively, the initial noncompetitive process for awarding High 

Growth grants was not adequately documented and did not include key 

players. Community Based and WIRED grants have always been awarded 

competitively, but more than 80 percent of High Growth grants, which 

represented almost 90 percent of the High Growth dollars—over $263 

million⎯were awarded noncompetitively even though federal law and 

Labor’s internal procedures recommend competition. Labor began 

awarding some High Growth grants competitively in 2005; and Congress, 

Page 3 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
in the fiscal year 2007 and 2008 appropriation laws, required Labor to 

competitively award High Growth grants funded under one of the two laws 

that authorize High Growth grants. Labor could not provide 

documentation of the initial criteria it used for selecting High Growth 

grants awarded without competition or whether these grants met 

requirements of the laws authorizing the grants or Labor’s own procedures 

for awarding grants without competition. Labor has taken steps to 

strengthen the process used for awarding noncompetitive grants; however, 

the procedures do not explicitly identify the statutory program 

requirements for which compliance should be documented. In addition, 

some state and local workforce investment board officials said that 

Labor’s process for identifying solutions to workforce challenges did not 

include them even though the Workforce Investment Act makes these 

boards central to the workforce system. Labor said it invited participation 

from workforce investment boards that were pursuing innovative 

workforce solutions and went so far as to enlist state coordinators to find 

them. Yet, even with these efforts, Labor’s list of participants shows that 

only 26 of the roughly 650 local workforce investment boards representing 

15 states were at the meetings. Promising ideas that originated at these 

meetings were shepherded by Labor through the awards process. 

Labor provides some monitoring of grantees under all three initiatives and 

uses a risk-based monitoring approach for High Growth and Community 

Based grants, but not for WIRED grants. As part of monitoring, Labor 

officials said they have a process for ensuring that grantees resolve 

findings in single audit reports. However, Labor’s inspector general found 

that Labor did not have procedures to require follow up on past due audit 

reports and recommended Labor implement such procedures. Although 

Labor has done so, Labor’s inspector general has not yet determined if 

these procedures adequately address the recommendation. As another 

part of its monitoring, Labor requires High Growth, Community Based, and 

WIRED grantees to submit quarterly financial and performance reports, 

but is still working to ensure the consistency of performance reports 

provided by High Growth and Community Based grantees. Labor provides 

technical assistance to help grantees comply with grant requirements, 

such as orientation sessions and guides on managing High Growth and 

Community Based grants. Labor officials said they have provided 

extensive technical assistance to each WIRED grantee including weekly 

contact and annual site visits to the first 13 WIRED grantees. In addition, 

Labor has spent $16 million on contracts to provide grantees with 

technical assistance and support. While these efforts help grantees manage 

their grants, they do not provide a risk-based monitoring process. In line 

with suggested grant practices, Labor uses a risk-based strategy to monitor 

Page 4 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
High Growth and Community Based grants, selecting monitored grantees 

based on indications of potential problems. Labor has monitored about 

half of the High Growth grants and over one-quarter of the Community 

Based grants. Labor officials said they are developing a WIRED grant 

assessment tool they plan to implement in spring 2008; however, the 

department has not finalized the tool nor developed a schedule for its use. 

To determine the impact of these three grant programs, ensure that the 

best possible projects are selected, and improve accountability of grant 

funds, we are recommending that the Secretary of Labor take steps to 

ensure that the agency can evaluate the impact of the initiatives, and that 

the agency identify the statutory program requirements for which 

compliance must be documented when awarding noncompetitive grants. 

In addition, we recommend that the Secretary develop and implement a 

risk-based monitoring approach for WIRED and a schedule for its use. 

We provided a draft of the report to Labor for review and comment. In 

response to our first recommendation, Labor said it has taken initial steps 

to evaluate the impact of the initiatives and disagreed with our assertion 

that the initiatives are not integrated into its strategic plan. We agree that 

the agency has taken initial steps, but these do not ensure that they will be 

able to assess the initiatives’ impact. We do not dispute that the strategic 

plan mentions the initiatives; however, we found that both the strategic 

and research plans do not tie the High Growth or WIRED initiatives to 

performance goals. In response to our second recommendation, Labor 

said it recently developed procedures to document noncompetitive grant 

proposals’ compliance with statutory requirements. Our review of the 

documents supporting these procedures found no specific reference to 

statutory program requirements against which proposals would be 

checked for compliance. We revised our draft recommendation to clarify 

that we are asking Labor to identify the statutory program requirements 

for which compliance should be documented. In response to our third 

recommendation, Labor said it plans to implement a risk-based monitoring 

approach. We continue to recommend that Labor follow through with this 

effort. 

Labor disagreed with several of our findings. It questioned whether it 

needed comparable outcome data. However, we believe that data which 

allow comparisons of the initiative participants’ outcomes with those of 

participants in WIA formula programs are important. Labor’s own 

documents suggest that these types of comparisons are warranted. The 

department also stated that workforce boards do not face challenges that 

cannot be overcome in pursuing demand driven practices encouraged 

Page 5 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
under the three initiatives. However, it acknowledged that it made efforts 

to provide workforce boards with assistance in implementing demanddriven approaches, some of which may address challenges GAO identified. 

Labor suggested that changing selection criteria was not improper; 

however, the absence of selection criteria or their changing over time 

affects the transparency of the non-competitive grant award process. The 

department noted that there are no rules for documenting the decisionmaking process for non-competitive grants, but agreed that additional 

documentation would be valuable. 

When it was enacted in 1998, WIA created a new, comprehensive 

workforce investment system designed to change the way employment 

and training services are delivered. Under WIA, each state establishes a 

state workforce investment board that, among other duties, determines 

strategic priorities, current and projected employment opportunities, and 

job skills necessary to obtain such employment. It also designates local 

workforce investment areas across the state and develops an allocation 

formula for distributing funds to those local areas. Each local area is 

governed by local workforce investment boards that make decisions about 

the number and location of one-stop career centers, where partner 

programs make their services and activities available. Local boards are 

required to promote employers’ participation in the workforce investment

system and assist them in meeting hiring needs. Training services provided 

must be directly linked to occupations in demand in the local area. To 

further the involvement of employers, WIA requires that more than half the 

members of each state and local workforce investment board be 

representatives of business. The purpose of the one-stop system is to 

increase the employment, retention, and earnings of job seekers and, by 

increasing their occupational skills, enhance the productivity and 

competitiveness of the national economy. WIA requires states and 

localities to track the performance of WIA-funded activities and Labor to 

hold states accountable for their performance in the areas of job 

placement, employment retention, and earnings change. 

Background 

The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) oversees the High 

Growth, Community Based, and Wired grant initiatives. The vast majority 

of these grants are awarded under a provision of WIA,1

 which provides 

authority for demonstration, pilot, multi-service, research, and multi-state 

projects, and a provision of the American Competitiveness and Workforce 

 1

29 U.S.C. § 2916. 

Page 6 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Improvement Act (ACWIA),2

 which provides authority for job training 

grants funded by the H-1B visa program.3 4

Labor is required to conduct impact evaluations of its programs and 

activities carried out under WIA, including pilot and demonstration 

projects.5

 While impact evaluations make it possible to isolate a program’s 

effect on participants’ outcomes, there are several ways to conduct them, 

including experimental and quasi-experimental methods.6

 In 20047 and 

2007,

8

 GAO recommended that Labor comply with WIA requirements to 

conduct an impact evaluation of WIA services to determine what services 

are most effective for improving employment-related outcomes. Labor 

agreed with our recommendation. In December 2007, the agency 

announced it had begun a quasi-experimental evaluation⎯an impact 

evaluation that does not use a control group—of the WIA Adult and 

 2

29 U.S.C. § 2916a. 

3

This program imposes a fee on employers that hire foreign workers to fill positions in 

specialized professions such as computer technology.

4

The High Growth Job Training Initiative was funded under both WIA and ACWIA 

provisions; the Community Based Job Training Grants were funded under the WIA 

provision and WIRED grants were funded under ACWIA. The High Growth grants were 

awarded under WIA as pilots and demonstrations. The WIA provision requires that grants

provide direct services to individuals, include an evaluative component, and are made to 

entities with recognized expertise. The ACWIA provision requires Labor to identify 

industries and economic sectors projected to experience significant growth. In addition 

the ACWIA provision requires Labor to use H-1B funds to award grants to entities to 

provide job training and related activities, ensure that grants are equitably distributed 

geographically, and ensure that training activities funded by such grants are coordinated

with the workforce investment system. 

5

This includes activities carried out under section 171.

6

In evaluating the impact of programs, outcome data from the program are compared to a 

baseline. Considered the most rigorous method for conducting impact evaluations, the

experimental method randomly assigns participants to two groups—one that receives a 

program service (or treatment) and one that does not (control group). The resulting 

outcome data on both groups are compared and the difference in outcomes between the 

groups is taken to demonstrate the program’s impact. In a quasi-experimental approach, 

program participation is not randomly assigned, but outcome data for individuals who

participated in a program are compared to others who did not. 

7

GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to 

Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help, GAO-04-657 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 1, 2004). 

8

GAO, Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve Information 

on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program Impact, GAO-07-594 (Washington,

D.C.: May 24, 2007). 

Page 7 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Dislocated Worker programs, with a final report expected in November 

2008. 

Federal law recommends, but does not require that all grants be awarded 

through competition. The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act 

encourages competition in grant programs, where appropriate, to ensure 

that the best possible projects are funded.9

 In addition, Labor’s own 

guidance governing procurement and grant operations—the Department 

of Labor Manual Series—states that competition is recommended, unless

one or more of eight exceptions apply.10 Further, a guide on improving 

grant accountability developed by the Domestic Working Group Grant 

Accountability Project recommends grants be awarded competitively 

because competition facilitates accountability, promotes fairness and 

openness, and increases assurance that grantees have the systems in place 

to efficiently and effectively use funds to meet grant goals.11

Effective monitoring is also a critical component of grant management. 

The Domestic Working Group’s suggested grant practices states that 

financial and performance monitoring is important to ensure

accountability and the attainment of performance goals. Labor monitors 

most grants through a risk-based strategy based on its “Core Monitoring 

Guide.” A key goal is to determine compliance with specific program 

requirements. The guide includes five monitoring areas: program design 

and governance, program and grant management systems, financial 

management systems, service, and product delivery, and performance 

accountability. In addition, entities receiving Labor grants are subject to 

the provisions of the Single Audit Act if certain conditions are met.12 The 

act established the concept of the single audit to replace multiple grant 

audits with one audit of a recipient as a whole. As such, a single audit is an

organization wide audit that covers, among other things, the recipient’s 

 9

31 U.S.C. § 6301(3). 

10Department of Labor Manual Series 2-836(G) – Exclusions and Exceptions to Competitive 

Procedures for grants and cooperative agreements. 

11The Domestic Working Group Grant Accountability Project, Guide to Opportunities for 

Improving Grant Accountability, October 2005. The group was composed of 

representatives from federal, state, and local audit organizations, including Labor’s 

inspector general. 

12OMB Circular A-133, which implements the Single Audit Act (31 U.S.C. §§7501-7507), 

requires nonfederal entities that expend $500,000 or more in federal funds to have a single

or program-specific audit conducted for that year. 

Page 8 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
internal controls and its compliance with applicable provisions of laws, 

regulations, contracts, and grants. 

According to Labor officials, the grant initiatives are designed to change 

the focus of the public workforce system to emphasize the employment 

and training needs of high-growth, high-demand industries, but Labor will 

be challenged in assessing their impact. For the three grant initiatives, 

Labor awarded 349 grants totaling almost $900 million that were intended

to bring about this change by identifying the workforce and training needs 

of growing, high-demand industries; engaging workforce, industry, and 

educational partners to develop innovative solutions to workforce 

challenges, such as worker shortages; leveraging a wide array of resources 

to fund the solutions; and integrating workforce and economic

development to transform regional economies by creating good jobs. 

However, 7 years after awarding the first grant, Labor will be challenged to

evaluate the effect of the grants. 

According to Labor officials, the High Growth, Community Based, and 

WIRED initiatives are designed to collectively change the focus of the 

workforce investment system by giving greater emphasis to the 

employment and training needs of high-growth, high-demand industries. 

They characterized High Growth as a systematic change initiative designed

to make the system more demand-driven (i.e., focused on the needs of 

growing and high-demand industries) and to make the system’s approach 

to workforce development more strategic by engaging business, industry, 

and education partners to identify workforce challenges and solutions. 13 

The Computing Technology Industry Association provides one example of

the kinds of activities funded under these grants. It used its High Growth 

grant to expand an apprenticeship program in a growing industry—

information technology. As a related effort, the Community Based grants 

were designed to build the training capacity of community colleges for 

high-growth, high-demand occupations. In expanding existing training 

Grants Are Intended 

to Change the 

Workforce System, 

but Labor Will Be 

Challenged to 

Evaluate Their Impact 

Labor Said the Grants Are 

Designed to Make the 

Workforce System More 

Focused on High-Growth, 

High-Demand Industries 

 13According to Labor, the High Growth initiative included several key steps prior to

awarding the grants and is ongoing through dissemination of grant results. Key steps

included: identification of high-growth, high-demand industries; industry scans to 

understand the size, trends, and scope of each industry; industry executive forums to hear

workforce challenges; workforce solutions forums to develop solutions to address these 

challenges; investments in workforce solutions (i.e., grants) for industry-identified 

challenges and follow-on competitive opportunities; and dissemination strategies for High 

Growth products. 

Page 9 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
programs and developing new programs aimed at addressing worker 

shortages in three high-demand health care occupations—nursing, dental

hygiene, and health unit coordinators, the Seattle Central Community 

College in Washington provides an example of efforts funded under these 

grants. The goal of third grant initiative, WIRED, was to “catalyze” the 

creation of high-skill and high-wage opportunities for workers within the 

context of regional economies, to test models for integrating workforce 

and economic development, and to demonstrate that workforce 

development is a key driver in transforming regional economies. The 

northeast region of Pennsylvania provides one example of the types of 

projects funded through WIRED. Pennsylvania is using WIRED grant funds 

to develop Wall Street West, a nine county regional project intended to 

provide backup and disaster recovery operations and facilities for the New 

York City financial markets. According to Labor officials, these funds 

support workforce education and training to support this effort. From 

2001 through 2007, Labor awarded 349 grants totaling almost $900 million 

for these initiatives (see table 1). For a list of these grants, see appendix II.

Table 1: Total Number and Amount of Grants Awarded by Labor, 2001-2007

Grant initiative Number of grants Amount

High Growth 166 $295,522,793

Community Based 142 250,000,000

WIRED 41 323,999,944

Total 349 $869,522,737

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data. 

While Labor said the three grant initiatives were necessary to shift the 

focus of the workforce investment system, experts held varying opinions

on the extent to which state and local workforce boards were pursuing 

demand-driven strategies on their own. Of the experts we spoke with, one 

said that many states were already focusing on high-growth sectors, 

reaching out to industry, and developing strategic partnerships. Another 

characterized innovation among workforce boards as a normal curve that

ranged from highly functional to less than functional. One said that some 

boards had always been pursuing these types of strategies. Another said 

that the system had been lacking in this regard. 

In addition, when considering how extensive demand-driven practices 

might have been, experts identified a number of systematic factors that 

might explain why workforce boards would face challenges in pursuing 

them. These included insufficient funding, limited flexibility in how funds 

Page 10 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
can be used, statutory requirements to target services to certain groups of 

workers, and the need to respond to local economic conditions. 

Commenting on workforce boards’ ability to form strategic partnerships, 

one expert noted that there are no funds to support such endeavors and no

performance standards to measure them. With regard to regional 

economic development, experts said boards are structured around local 

areas, not regions, regional economies are highly variable, regional 

governance structures can make achieving buy-in difficult and that rural 

areas can be particularly challenged in pursuing regional approaches. 

Beyond the question of how extensive demand-driven practices were, 

Labor officials said a number of indicators show that the initiatives are 

changing the system. According to Labor, they have seen a “system-shift” 

in the approach to implementing workforce solutions through an increase 

in demand-driven topics at conferences since the roll out of the initiatives. 

Labor said this shift has been driven by partnerships between the 

workforce investment system, business, industry, and educators using the 

High Growth framework. Labor also said it is seeing demand-driven 

strategies in state and local strategic plans and in states using their own 

money to fund High Growth-like projects. Labor pointed out that the 

system has evolved to the point where high performing local workforce 

boards with demand-driven practices are mentoring lesser performers. 

Lastly, Labor said the content on its Web site, Workforce3 One, was also 

evidence of change. For example, Labor held an interactive seminar 

broadcast on this site to train participants to use an on-line tool to share 

curricula developed through the initiatives. 

Seven Years after 

Awarding the First Grant, 

Labor Will Be Challenged 

to Evaluate Their Impact 

Despite the money invested and emphasis placed on these initiatives, 

Labor did not fully integrate them into its strategic plan or ETA’s research 

plan from the start. The Government Performance and Results Act states 

that strategic plans shall contain strategic goals and objectives, including 

outcome-related, or performance goals, and objectives for an agency’s 

major functions and operations.14 However, the strategic plan includes 

performance goals only for the Community Based initiative. High Growth 

and WIRED—the two initiatives where Labor spent the most money⎯are 

mentioned in the strategic plan, but not specifically linked to a 

performance goal; therefore, it is unclear what criteria Labor will use to 

evaluate their effectiveness. Moreover, the data needed to assess the 

performance of these initiatives are not specified. Labor officials said the 

 145 U.S.C. § 306. 

Page 11 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
strategic plan did not address the initiatives because it focuses on budget 

issues. Just as the initiatives are not fully integrated into the strategic plan, 

neither are they fully integrated into ETA’s research plan, which cites 

plans for future evaluations, but it does not specify an assessment of their 

impact. 

Not fully incorporating the initiatives into its strategic or research plans 

may have limited Labor’s ability to collect consistent outcome data. Labor 

said that prior to 2005, it consistently collected data from grantees on the 

number of participants enrolled in and completing training funded under 

High Growth—the only one of the three grant initiatives operating at that 

time. However, it did not collect performance outcomes similar to those 

being collected for its other training and employment services.15 In 2005, 

Labor instituted what were called common measures to assess the 

effectiveness of one-stop programs and services. The common measures 

include participant employment outcomes, earnings, and job retention 

after receiving services. Currently, Labor cannot require High Growth and 

Community Based grantees to provide data on the common measures until 

it receives OMB approval. According to Labor, it can collect such 

measures for WIRED grantees, but it has not yet done so.16 As a result, 

Labor may not have consistent data for individuals participating in the 

programs funded under the grant initiatives. In addition, it may lack data 

that will allow it to compare outcomes for individuals served by grantfunded programs with those served by employment and training programs 

offered through the one-stop system. Having comparable outcome data is 

important because the goal of an impact evaluation is to determine if 

outcomes are attributable to a program or can be explained by other 

factors. 

Labor will face challenges in obtaining the data necessary to make 

meaningful comparisons. Starting in 2006, Labor included information on 

 15While acknowledging that reporting practices for High Growth were not established fully 

at the initiative’s outset, officials said this was because the nature of the initiative posed 

inherent challenges in developing a common reporting and performance model: each grant 

was different, with different training models for different populations; some grants were

for training, others were for capacity building. Labor said that as it became clear that more

rigorous procedures for reporting were needed, it took the necessary steps to address the 

problem. 

16Labor developed a proposed approach to collect and report the common measures for

WIRED grants using the existing state WIA performance system, but, as of November 2007, 

it had not yet collected them.

Page 12 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
the common measures in all new solicitations for High Growth and 

Community Based grants, notified grantees of its goal for standardizing 

performance reporting, and provided technical assistance to help grantees

prepare for it. Labor also encouraged grantees to work with local 

workforce system partners to leverage their experience in tracking and 

reporting performance outcomes. Labor anticipates having an OMB 

approved reporting format in place by July 1, 2008. However, because 

some of the first grantees have already completed their projects, obtaining

information about workers that have left the program may prove difficult 

and costly. 

Labor has some plans underway to evaluate the initiatives, but may face 

challenges drawing strong conclusions from them. Labor has conducted 

an evaluation of the implementation and sustainability of 20 early High 

Growth grantees. It is now evaluating the impact of the training provided 

by High Growth grantees. Labor anticipates the final report in December 

2008. However, Labor has already experienced a number of challenges in 

evaluating the initiatives. These include having to limit its evaluation to 

only 6 grantees of 166, because only 6 had sufficient participants to ensure 

a statistically significant evaluation. They also include problems gaining 

access to workers’ earnings data, and inconsistent outcome data from 

grantees. 

Labor officials said they plan to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 

the Community Based initiative. The first phase of the evaluation will 

examine the extent to which the Community Based grants addressed the 

stated workforce objectives and challenges funded projects were intended

to address, as well as document the role of business and the workforce 

investment system in the overall success of the grants, according to Labor.

This phase will also include an examination of the feasibility of performing

an impact evaluation and will be completed in late 2008. Depending on the 

results of this phase, Labor officials said an impact evaluation will begin in

2009. 

For its evaluation of the WIRED initiatives, Labor says it is examining the 

implementation and cumulative effects of WIRED strategies, including 

change in the number and size of companies in targeted high-growth 

industries and whether new training led to job placement in the targeted 

industries. It contracted with the Berkeley Policy Associates to conduct 

the evaluation for the first 13 grantees, and a final report is expected by

June 2010. It also contracted with Public Policy Associates to similarly 

evaluate the 28 remaining WIRED grantees. Labor officials said these 

initiatives are not included in the agency’s broader WIA impact study. 

Page 13 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
While Labor now awards grants under all three grant initiatives

competitively, initially almost all High Growth grants were awarded 

without competition. Labor also did not document the criteria for selecting 

noncompetitive High Growth grants or whether they met Labor’s internal 

requirements or the requirements of the laws under which the grants are 

authorized. In addition, Labor’s process for identifying workforce 

solutions did not include most of the state and local workforce investment 

boards. 

The Community Based and the WIRED grants have always been awarded 

through a competitive process, but until 2005, Labor did not award High 

Growth grants competitively even though federal law and Labor’s internal 

procedures recommend competition. While Labor had discretion in 

awarding High Growth grants without competition, the extent to which it 

did so raises questions about how Labor used this method of awarding 

grants. Competition facilitates accountability, promotes fairness and 

openness, and increases assurance that grantees have systems in place to

meet grant goals. Yet Labor chose to award 83 percent of the High Growth 

grants, which represented almost 90 percent of the funds, without 

competition between fiscal years 2001 and 2007 (see table 2). Congress 

required that High Growth grants funded by H-1B fees be awarded 

competitively for fiscal years 2007 and 2008.17 Prior to that time, there were 

no provisions requiring Labor to award High Growth grants competitively.

The Initial 

Noncompetitive 

Process Was Not 

Adequately 

Documented and Did 

Not Include Key 

Players

All Three Types of Grants 

Are Now Awarded 

Competitively, but the Vast 

Majority of High Growth 

Grants Were Awarded 

Without Competition 

Table 2: The Number of High Growth Grants and Funds Awarded Competitively and Noncompetitively between Fiscal Years 

2001 and 2007 (Dollars in millions) 

Fiscal 

year 

Number of 

noncompetitive

grants 

Funds awarded

noncompetitively

Number of 

competitive 

grants

Funds awarded

competitively

Summary of grants 

and funds awarded

 noncompetitively

2001 1 $2.8 0 0 100% of grants and funds 

2002 7 14.7 0 0 100% of grants and funds 

2003 15 30.3 0 0 100% of grants and funds 

2004 37 77.4 0 0 100% of grants and funds 

2005 55 86.7 12 $12 82% of grants and 88% of funds 

 17This requirement did not apply to grants awarded under the WIA provision authorizing 

High Growth grants. 

Page 14 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Fiscal 

year 

Number of 

noncompetitive

grants 

Funds awarded

noncompetitively

Number of 

competitive 

grants

Funds awarded

competitively

Summary of grants 

and funds awarded

 noncompetitively

2006 21 50.5 0 0 100% of grants and funds 

2007 1 1.4 17 19.8 6% of grants and 7% of funds

Total 137 $263.8a29 $31.8a83% of grants and 89% of funds

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data. 

Notes: The fiscal year was calculated based on the start date of the grant. Labor awards grants by

program year rather than fiscal year, which is from July 1 through June 30 of each year. a

Total dollar amount varies from Labor’s reported figure due to rounding. 

Labor said that it used a noncompetitive process to promote innovation. 

They also said that they awarded grants without competition to save the 

time it would have taken to solicit grants through competition. In 

hindsight, they said they could have offered the High Growth grants 

competitively earlier because they recognized that the number of 

noncompetitive awards created a perception that the process was unfair. 

They said, however, that they always intended to award later grants 

competitively. 

In contrast to the High Growth grants, the Community Based and WIRED 

initiatives have always been awarded through competition. These funding

opportunities were announced to potential applicants through a 

solicitation for grant application that listed the information that an 

application must include to compete for funding. These applications were 

then reviewed and scored by a knowledgeable technical panel. These 

solicitations were also reviewed by Labor attorneys for compliance with

procurement and statutory program requirements for awarding grants, 

according to officials. 

Labor Did Not Document 

the Criteria for Selecting 

Noncompetitive High 

Growth Grants or Whether 

They Met Labor’s Internal 

Requirements or 

Requirements of the Law 

Because the initial High Growth process was noncompetitive, 

documenting the decision steps was all the more important to ensure 

transparency. However, Labor was unable to provide documentation of 

the initial criteria for selecting grantees. As a result, it did not meet federal

internal control standards, which state that all transactions and other 

significant events need to be clearly documented and that the

documentation should be readily available for examination.18 In addition, it

was unable to document that it met the statutory requirements for the laws 

 18GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

Page 15 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
authorizing the grants. Lastly, according to Labor’s inspector general, it did

not adequately document that it had followed its own procedures for 

awarding grants without competition. 

Labor did not document the criteria used to select the early

noncompetitive High Growth projects. Labor officials told us there were 

no official published guidelines specific to High Growth grants, only draft

guidelines, which were no longer available. In addition, Labor officials told 

us that generally they were looking for grantees that pursued partnerships 

and leveraged resources, but that attributes they sought changed over 

time. Labor published general requirements for noncompetitive grants in 

2005 and updated them in 2007. Officials said these were not requirements, 

only guidelines for the kinds of information Labor would find valuable in 

evaluating proposals. 

In addition, while Labor said noncompetitive grants could be awarded 

without competition under the WIA provision authorizing demonstrations

and pilot projects19 and under ACWIA, they could not document that the 

grants fully complied with the requirements of these provisions. For 

example, WIA requirements include providing direct services to 

individuals, including an evaluative component, and being awarded to 

private entities with recognized expertise or to state and local entities with 

expertise in operating or overseeing workforce investment programs.20

Officials said that they were certain they had ensured that the projects met 

all statutory requirements, but acknowledged they did not document that 

the requirements were met. 

Labor’s inspector general found the agency did not always document that 

it followed its own procedures or always obtained required review and 

approval before awarding grants noncompetitively. Labor officials said 

most of the noncompetitive grant proposals were presented to Labor’s 

Procurement Review Board21 for review and approval allowed under 

exceptions for proposals that were unique or innovative, highly cost-

 1929 U.S.C § 2916. 

2029 U.S.C § 2916(b)(1) and 29 U.S.C § 2916(b)(2)(B).

21Labor’s Procurement Review Board is responsible for reviewing various acquisition 

activities, including most unsolicited grant proposals, and recommending approval or

disapproval to the department’s Chief Acquisitions Officer. 

Page 16 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
effective, or available from only one source.22 However, in 2007, Labor’s 

inspector general reviewed a sample of the noncompetitive High Growth 

grants awarded between July 2001 and March 2007 and found that 6 of the 

26 grants, which should have undergone review, were awarded without 

prior approval from the review board. Furthermore, they found that Labor

could not demonstrate that proper procedures were followed in awarding 

the High Growth grants without competition.23

Although they were unable to provide documentation, Labor officials said

they used considerable rigor in selecting grant recipients under the 

noncompetitive process. Similar to a competitive process, the 

noncompetitive grant proposals were highly scrutinized and reviewed to 

ensure they made best use of scarce resources. They said that in most 

cases, staff created abstracts to highlight strengths and weaknesses and 

multiple staff and managers participated in reviews and decision-making. 

In addition, Labor officials strongly disagreed with the majority of the 

inspector general’s findings. They said they followed established 

procurement practices as required but agreed that additional

documentation would be valuable. 

In response to the inspector general’s report, Labor has taken steps to 

strengthen the noncompetitive process. These include developing 

procedures to review noncompetitive grant proposals for criteria including

support of at least one of ETA’s strategic goals and investment priorities. 

The procedures also require ETA to document that required procedures 

are followed and that required review and approval is obtained before 

awarding grants noncompetitively. However, the newly developed 

procedures do not explicitly identify the statutory program requirements 

for which compliance should be documented. 

 22Department of Labor Manual Series 2-836(G) – Exclusions and Exceptions to Competitive 

Procedures for grants and cooperative agreements. There are five additional exceptions

listed for awarding noncompetitive grants: (1) a noncompetitive award is authorized or

required by statute; (2) the activity is essential to the satisfactory completion of an activity 

presently funded by DOL; (3) it is necessary to fund a recipient with an established 

relationship with the agency for a variety of reasons; (4) the application for the activity was 

evaluated under the criteria of the competition for which the application was submitted, 

was rated high enough to have been selected under the competition, and was not selected 

because the application was mishandled; and (5) the Secretary determined that a

noncompetitive award is in the public interest. 

23U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General—Office of Audit, High Growth Job 

Training Initiative: Decisions for Non-competitive Awards Not Adequately Justified, 

02-08-201-03-390 (Nov. 2, 2007). 

Page 17 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
The vast majority of workforce boards—which oversee the workforce 

investment system—were not included in the meetings that served as 

incubators for grant proposals. After identifying 13 high-growth/highdemand sectors,24 Labor held a series of meetings between 2002 and 2005

with industry executives and other stakeholders to identify workforce 

challenges and to develop solutions to them.25 According to Labor, they 

first held meetings with industry executives—executive forums—for 13 

sectors to hear directly from industry leaders about the growth potential 

for their industries and to understand the workforce challenges they faced. 

Second, they hosted a series of workforce solutions forums for 11 of the 

sectors, which brought together industry executives (often those engaged

in human resources and training activities) with representatives from 

education, state and local workforce boards, or other workforce-related 

agencies.26 However, a review of Labor’s rosters for the solutions forums 

shows that while there were more than 800 participants, 26 of the almost 

650 local workforce boards nationwide were represented, and these came 

from 15 states. (See fig. 1.) 

Labor’s Process for 

Identifying Industry 

Workforce Challenges Did 

Not Include the Majority of 

Workforce Investment 

Boards 

 24Labor identified a 14th sector—Homeland Security—in 2005 and did not hold an 

executive or solutions forum for this sector, according to officials. 

25Labor conducted industry scans of the size, trends, and scope of certain industries to 

understand the industries and any known challenges. In this process, they identified high

growth/high-demand industries that have a high-demand for workers. Officials said that 

they did not intend to identify all high-growth industry sectors in the economy, but to

provide a framework for the process to be used at the state and local levels. 

26Solutions forums were not held for the information technology and retail sectors. 

Page 18 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Figure 1: Number of Workforce Investment Boards and States with Participants at Solutions Forums 

0

1

2

3

Number of workforce investment board representatives

Sources: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor data on solutions forums participants; map, Art Explosion.

Page 19 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Further only 20 of the 50 states had their state workforce investment 

board or other agency represented (see table 3).27

Table 3: Industry Sector Solutions Forums and the Number of Participants 

Industry sector 

solutions forum 

Total number of

participants at 

each solutions 

forum

Local workforce 

investment

board

participation

State workforce 

investment board or

other state agency 

participation

Advanced 

manufacturing 61 3 0

Aerospace 40 1 0

Automotive 216 6 9

Biotechnology 29 4 6

Construction 86 5 2

Energy 26 0 1

Financial services 99 3 4

Geospatial technology 41 1 2

Health 155 6 10

Hospitality 57 3 3

Transportation 19 2 2

Total 829 34a39b

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor data on solutions forums participants. 

a

The numbers for local workforce investment board participation does not total 26 because 2 

workforce investment boards participated in more than one solutions forums; the remaining 24 

participated in only one. Also some local workforce investment boards had more than one 

representative. 

b

The numbers for state workforce investment board or other state agency participation does not total 

20 because several states attended more than one forum and some states had more than one 

agency represented. 

Labor officials said they went to great lengths to include workforce system 

participants in solutions forums. Officials said they asked state workforce 

agencies to identify a state coordinator to interface with Labor, work 

collaboratively with industry partners, and identify potential attendees for 

executive and solutions forums. Further, the state coordinators were to 

help Labor communicate with the workforce system about High Growth 

activities and were kept updated through routine conference calls and 

 27Some states had representatives from the state workforce investment board participating

and some states had a workforce-related agency such as those involved in employment 

and/or economic development.

Page 20 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
periodic in-person meetings, according to Labor. Labor officials also said 

the Assistant Secretary and other senior officials traveled frequently, 

speaking to workforce system partners at conferences to gather 

information about innovative practices. Labor officials said, even with 

these efforts, they found only a few workforce boards operating unique or 

innovative demand-driven programs. 

However, most workforce board officials we spoke to in our site visits 

reported becoming aware of the meetings and the grant opportunities after 

the fact, even though they were pursuing the kinds of innovative practices 

the meeting was supposed to promote. Some state board officials said that 

they were often unaware that grants had been awarded, and at least one 

local workforce board said it became aware of a grant only when the 

community college grantee approached it for assistance in getting enough

students for their program. In addition, officials in states we visited said 

they had been developing and using the types of practices that Labor was 

seeking to promote at the meetings. 

Being present at the meetings could have been beneficial to workforce 

boards. Labor officials acknowledged that when meeting participants 

suggested a solution to an employment challenge that they deemed 

innovative and had merit, they encouraged them to submit a proposal for a 

grant to model the solution. In addition, officials said that in some cases, 

they provided applicants additional assistance to increase the chances that

the proposal would be funded. 

Page 21 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
For all three grant initiatives, Labor has a process to resolve findings 

found in single audits, collects quarterly performance information, and 

provides technical assistance as a part of monitoring. In addition, it has a 

risk-based monitoring approach for High Growth and Community Based 

grants, but has not implemented such an approach for WIRED grants.28

However, Labor officials told us that they are developing a risk-based 

approach for monitoring WIRED grants that they plan to implement in the

spring of 2008. According to Labor’s grants monitoring guide, improving 

grant administration is crucial to Labor’s management improvement plans 

and risk-based on-site monitoring of grantees is an important part of this 

effort. 

Labor said it has a process to work with grantees, including High Growth, 

Community Based, and WIRED to resolve findings in single audits. 

However, Labor’s inspector general reported that Labor does not have

procedures in place for grant officers to follow up with grantees with past 

due audit reports to ensure timely submission and thus proper oversight 

and correction of audit findings. The inspector general recommended that 

Labor implement such procedures and Labor has done so, but the finding

remains open because Labor’s inspector general has not yet determined if 

the procedures adequately address the recommendation.29

Labor Uses a RiskBased Monitoring 

Approach for High 

Growth and 

Community Based 

Grants but Not for 

WIRED Grants 

Labor Has a Process to 

Ensure Grantees Resolve 

Findings in Single Audits, 

Collects Quarterly 

Performance Information, 

and Provides Technical 

Assistance 

As part of its monitoring, Labor requires High Growth, Community Based,

and WIRED grantees to submit quarterly financial and performance 

reports. Financial reports contain information, such as total amount of 

grant funds spent and amount of matching funds provided by the grantee.

Performance reports focus on activities leading to performance goals, 

such as grantee accomplishments and challenges to meeting grant goals. 

Labor officials said they review these reports and follow up with grantees

 28Labor’s risk-based monitoring strategy differs from single audits. Entities receiving Labor 

grants are subject to the provisions of the Single Audit Act if certain conditions are met. 

The Single Audit Act established the concept of the single audit to replace multiple grant 

audits with one audit of a recipient as a whole. As such a single audit is an organizationwide audit that covers, among other things, the recipient’s internal controls and its

compliance with applicable provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants. In

contrast, Labor’s risk-based approach focuses on the readiness and capacity of the grantee 

to operate the grant including compliance with laws, regulations, and specific program 

requirements. 

29 U.S. Department of Labor—Office of Inspector General, report prepared by KPMG LLP, 

Management Advisory Comments Identified in an Audit of the Consolidated Financial 

Statements for the Year Ended September 30, 2007, 22-08-006-13-001 (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 20, 2008). 

Page 22 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
if there are questions. Labor officials acknowledge, however, that they are 

still working to ensure the consistency of performance reports provided 

by High Growth and Community Based grantees and are working with 

OMB to establish consistent reporting requirements. In addition, while the 

finding was not specific to these three grants, Labor’s inspector general 

cited high error rates in grantee performance data as a management 

challenge.30 Labor is taking steps to improve grant accountability, such as 

providing grantee and grant officer training. 

All grantees receive technical assistance from Labor on how to comply 

with laws and regulations, program guidance, and grant conditions. For 

example, Labor issued guides for High Growth and Community Based 

grantees which include information on allowable costs and reporting 

requirements. In addition, Labor officials said they trained national and

regional office staff to address grantees’ questions and help High Growth 

and Community Based grantees obtain assistance from experts at Labor 

and other grantees. Labor officials said they hold national and regional 

High Growth and Community Based grantee orientation sessions for new 

grantees, present technical assistance webinars and training sessions 

focused on specific high-growth industries, assist grantees with 

disseminating grant results and products, such as curricula, and set up 

virtual networking groups of High Growth grantees to encourage 

collaboration. 

Labor officials told us they have teams who provide technical assistance to 

each WIRED grantee including weekly contact. During these sessions, 

Labor staff work with WIRED grantees on grant management issues, such 

as costs that are allowed using grant funds. Labor staff provide additional 

assistance through conference calls, site visits, and documentation 

reviews. In addition, Labor officials said they have held five webinars on 

allowable costs and provided grantees with a paper on allowable costs in 

July 2006, which was updated in July 2007. Finally, Labor officials 

explained that they made annual site visits for the first 13 WIRED grantees 

in spring and summer of 2007 to discuss implementation plans and 

progress toward plan goals. In addition, Labor staff said they have 

reviewed the implementation of the remaining WIRED grants to ensure 

that planned activities comply with requirements of the law. However, 

none of these reviews resulted in written reports with findings and 

corrective action plans.

 30This observation was based on audits of three Labor grantees during fiscal year 2007. 

Page 23 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Labor has spent $16 million on contracts to provide technical assistance, 

improve grant management, administration, and monitoring, and to assist 

Labor with tasks such as holding grantee training conferences. The larger

of these contracts focus on providing technical assistance to WIRED 

grantees. For example, one contract valued at over $2 million provides 

WIRED grantees assistance with assessing regional strength and 

weaknesses and developing regional economic strategies and 

implementation plans. Another grant, valued at almost $4 million, provides 

a database and geographic information system31 that WIRED grantees can 

use to facilitate data analysis and reporting, among other things. For a list 

of these contracts, see appendix III. 

While these monitoring and technical assistance efforts are useful to help

grantees manage their grants, they do not provide a risk-based monitoring 

process to identify and resolve problems, such as compliance issues, in a 

consistent and timely manner. 

Labor Provides Risk-Based 

Monitoring for High 

Growth and Community 

Based Grants 

Labor uses a risk-based strategy to monitor grants under two of the three 

grant initiatives: High Growth and Community Based. For these initiatives

it selects grantees to monitor based on indications of problems that may 

affect grant performance. Labor’s risk-based approach to monitoring most 

grants reflects suggested grant practices. Suggested grant practices 

recognize that it is important to identify, prioritize, and manage potential 

at-risk grant recipients for monitoring given the large number of grants 

awarded by federal agencies. Through this process, Labor staff determine 

if grantee administration and program delivery systems operate, the 

grantee is in compliance with program requirements, and information 

reported is accurate. 

Labor’s risk-based monitoring strategy involves conducting site visits 

based on grantees’ assessed risk-levels and availability of resources, 

among other things.32 These site visits include written assessments of 

grantee’s management and performance and compliance findings and 

requirements for corrective action. For example, Labor’s site visit guide 

 31A geographic information system is a computer application used to store, view, and 

analyze geographical information, especially maps. 

32Labor’s grant monitoring plans are to reflect any program-specific monitoring 

requirements as well as specific requirements for on-site visits to grantees with new grants 

and those rated “at-risk” though the risk assessment process.

Page 24 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
includes questions about financial and performance data reporting 

systems, such as how well the grantee maintains files on program 

participants.33

Labor has monitored about half of the High Growth grants and over onequarter of the Community Based grants. Labor officials said these 

monitoring efforts have resulted in a number of significant findings which 

have generally been resolved in a timely manner. (See table 4.) For 

example, during a November 2006 site visit of a Community Based grantee 

Labor identified three findings: incomplete participant files, failure to 

follow internal procurement procedures, and missing grant partnership 

agreements. Similarly, during a site visit in spring 2006 to a High Growth 

grantee, Labor found that the grantee did not accurately track participant 

information and reported incorrect information on expenditures, among 

other things. As of September 2007 Labor said these findings had been

resolved (see table 4). 

Table 4: Status of Risk-Based Monitored Grants as of September 30, 2007 

Status High Growth Community Based

Findings resolved 38 13

Findings not yet resolved 10 5

No findings 31 21

Total monitored 79 39

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants monitoring data. 

As another part of Labor’s risk-based monitoring strategy, Labor’s internal 

requirements specify that Labor staff are to make site visits to all new 

grantees, including High Growth, Community Based, and WIRED, within

12 months of beginning grant activity and to new grantees rated as “at 

risk” within 3 months. Labor officials said they consider “new grantee” site 

visits to be orientation visits and had not made visits to most new 

grantees. They said they broadly interpret this requirement to include a 

variety of methods of contact and generally use teleconference and video

conference training sessions rather than site visits, based on the 

availability of resources. For example, Labor calls each new Community 

Based grantee to schedule new grantee training. Labor is taking steps to 

 33Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Core Monitoring 

Guide (Washington D.C.: April 2005). 

Page 25 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
update its internal requirements to better reflect the purpose of the new 

grantee monitoring. 

Labor officials said they are developing a WIRED grant assessment tool, 

but it is not finalized. They plan to implement it in spring 2008; however, 

the department has not developed a schedule for its use. Labor officials 

explained that a specific tool is needed for monitoring WIRED grants 

because the site visit guide used for most other Labor grants would not be 

appropriate for WIRED grants. One reason is that WIRED grants are 

awarded to states but are generally administered by other entities. For 

example, Labor awarded a $15 million WIRED grant to the state of 

Colorado, but programs funded by the grant are primarily administered by 

the not-for-profit Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation. 

Seven years after awarding the first grants, Labor is in the process of 

evaluating the High Growth and WIRED initiatives and has plans to 

evaluate the Community Based initiative but will be challenged to evaluate

the effect of the almost $900 million spent on the grant initiatives. Because

of poor planning, the agency will not be able to perform the kind of 

comprehensive impact evaluation that would have been possible if it had 

been collecting data consistent with that collected for other WIA programs 

all along. Because Labor lacks such data it will be challenged in drawing 

strong conclusions from its planned evaluations. Until Labor collects 

consistent outcome data, such as the common measures, that would allow 

comparison of impact of each of the three grant initiatives to those of 

other Labor programs, Labor cannot know the extent to which the 

initiatives improve employment outcomes, if at all. 

Labor Is Planning to 

Develop a Risk-Based 

Approach for Monitoring 

WIRED Grants, but It Has 

Not Yet Done So 

Conclusions 

The vast majority of High Growth grants—more than $263 million— were 

awarded noncompetitively using inconsistent selection criteria under a 

process that was not adequately documented. As a result there is little 

assurance that the grants selected were the best possible projects. 

Although Labor currently awards grants under all three grant initiatives 

competitively, the fact that Labor used inconsistent selection criteria that 

changed over time and did not adequately document the process when 

awarding High Growth grants noncompetitively raises questions about 

how Labor uses this method of awarding grants. This is a critical concern

given that Labor could again award millions of dollars of noncompetitive 

grants. While it has taken steps to strengthen the noncompetitive process,

the newly developed procedures do not explicitly identify the statutory 

program requirements for which compliance should be documented. 

Page 26 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Finally, the absence of a risk-based monitoring approach for WIRED puts 

Labor at risk of not knowing if the millions of dollars awarded to WIRED 

grantees have been used for the purposes they are intended.

To determine the impact of the three grant initiatives, ensure that the best 

possible projects are selected, and improve accountability of grant funds, 

we recommend that the Secretary of Labor take the following three 

actions: 

• Take steps to ensure that the department can evaluate the impact of the

initiatives so that it can draw strong conclusions based on its evaluations, 

such as following through with plans to collect consistent data, integrating 

the initiatives into its overall research agenda with relevant performance 

goals and indicators, and including these initiatives in its assessment of the 

impact of WIA services. 

• Direct the Employment and Training Administration to identify the 

statutory program requirements for which compliance must be 

documented when awarding noncompetitive grants. 

• Develop and implement a risk-based monitoring approach for WIRED and 

a schedule for its use. 

We provided a draft of the report to Labor for review and comment. In 

response to our first recommendation, Labor said it has taken initial steps 

to evaluate the impact of the initiatives and disagreed with our assertion 

that the initiatives are not integrated into its strategic plan. We agree that 

the agency has taken initial steps, but these do not ensure that they will be 

able to assess the initiatives’ impact. We do not dispute that the strategic 

plan mentions the initiatives; however, we found that both the strategic 

and research plans do not tie the High Growth or WIRED initiatives to 

performance goals, making it unclear what criteria Labor will use to 

evaluate their effectiveness. In response to the first recommendation, 

Labor also disputed a claim that we did not make, namely that the 

initiatives belong in the assessment of WIA services. 

In response to our second recommendation, Labor said it recently 

developed procedures to document noncompetitive grant proposals’ 

compliance with statutory requirements. In its comments and in its 

corrective action plan to address Labor’s inspector general’s findings, 

Labor noted that its new procedures for reviewing noncompetitive grant 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 27 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
proposals included determining if they met these requirements and 

requires documenting this. Labor’s inspector general is in the process of 

reviewing these corrective actions to determine their adequacy. Our 

review of the documents supporting these new procedures found no 

specific reference to statutory program requirements against which 

proposals would be checked for compliance. We revised our draft 

recommendation to clarify that we are asking Labor to identify the 

statutory program requirements for which compliance should be 

documented. 

In response to our third recommendation, Labor said it plans to implement 

a risk-based monitoring approach for the WIRED initiative. Given that 

Labor has not yet done so, we stand by our recommendation that they 

follow through with this effort. 

In its comments Labor disagreed with several of our findings and stated 

that 

• the initiatives were not considered research projects and were not 

designed to compare participant outcomes with the participant 

outcomes achieved under the WIA formula program; 

• workforce boards face no challenges that cannot be overcome in 

pursuing demand driven practices that are encouraged under the 

three initiatives; 

• it is not improper to modify criteria for selecting grantees when the 

agency assessment of workforce needs changes; and 

• there are no specific rules for documenting the decision-making 

process for noncompetitive grants, but agreed that additional

documentation would be valuable and indicated that it has taken 

steps to require such documentation 

While we recognize that the grants awarded under these initiatives were 

not research projects per se, many were funded as pilots and 

demonstrations and by statute were required to have an evaluative 

component. Although Labor says that it did not intend to compare the 

initiative participants’ outcomes with those of participants in WIA formula 

programs, its own documents suggest that these types of comparisons are 

warranted. We stand by our findings that workforce boards face 

challenges implementing demand-driven approaches. Labor 

acknowledged their efforts to provide workforce boards with assistance in

this area. Regarding selection of noncompetitive, High Growth grantees, 

the fact remains that Labor could not provide specific criteria used for 

selecting these grantees and told us that these criteria changed over time. 

Although Labor’s statement that no rules exist for documenting decision 

Page 28 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
making runs counter to federal principles for internal controls, it indicated 

that it is taking steps to address this issue. 

Labor officials also provided technical comments that we incorporated 

into the report where appropriate. Labor’s written comments are 

reproduced in appendix IV. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, relevant

congressional committees, and other interested parties. We also will make 

copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

made available at no charge on the GAO 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 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of 

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

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

listed in appendix IV. 

George A. Scott 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 

Page 29 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Our objectives were to examine (1) the intent of the grant initiatives and 

the extent to which Labor will be able to assess their effects; (2) the extent 

to which the process used competition, was adequately documented, and

included key players; and (3) what Labor is doing to monitor individual 

grantee compliance with grant requirements. 

To determine the intent of the grant initiatives and the extent to which 

Labor was able to assess their effects, we reviewed documents, including 

grant proposals and quarterly reports, Labor’s strategic plan to identify 

plans for research, and a study on the implementation and sustainability of

the early High Growth grants.1

 We reviewed available solicitations for 

grant applications to understand the purpose and goals of the grants and

to identify the kinds of outcome data that Labor expected from grantees—

three for competitive High Growth grants, three Community Based grants, 

and two WIRED grants. In addition, we interviewed the appropriate Labor 

officials and also public workforce experts from the Upjohn Institute, the 

Council on Competitiveness, the National Governors Association, the 

National Network of Sector Partners, the Urban Institute, the National 

Association of State Workforce Agencies, and the National Association of 

Workforce Boards to obtain their views on the grant initiatives and 

workforce system activities. We also obtained a list of all High Growth, 

Community Based, and WIRED grants awarded between fiscal year 2001 

and 2007 to determine the amounts, the source of funding, and the timing 

of the awards. We assessed the reliability of the individual grant data 

Labor provided by (1) reviewing the data for obvious errors and 

completeness, (2) reviewing related documentation, and (3) interviewing 

agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the 

data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. In addition, 

we reviewed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and the American 

Competitiveness Act (ACWIA), the two primary laws under which the 

funding for these grants was authorized. 

We also conducted site visits. Out of a universe of about 340 grantees 

provided by Labor at the time of our review, we selected eight for more indepth study, conducted semi-structured interviews of grantees and state 

and local workforce officials, and reviewed grantees’ proposals and recent

quarterly reports. We visited six grantees in five states—Colorado, Florida, 

 1 John Trutko, Carolyn O’Brien, Pamela Holcomb, and Demetra Smith Nightingale,

Implementation and Sustainability: Emerging Lessons from the Early High Growth Job 

Training Initiative (HGJTI) Grants, Final Report (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute,

April 2007). 

Page 30 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

New Hampshire, New York, and Washington and contacted two additional 

grantees by telephone in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Four criteria were used 

to select these grantees: (1) grant type—we selected an industry/business 

representative, a community college, and a representative of the public 

workforce system for High Growth grantees; three community colleges 

for the Community Based grantees; and two regional grantees for WIRED; 

(2) geographic location—the sites represented different regions of the 

country; (3) time period—for the High Growth grantees, we selected two

that received a grant through the noncompetitive process and had been 

operating 3 or more years and one grantee that competed for its award and 

was 2 years old; all of the Community Based were 2-year-old grants; and 

the WIRED grantees represented the first generation, which were only 1 

year old; and (4) award amount—we selected grantees with awards that 

exceeded $1 million. 

In examining the extent to which the process used competition, was 

adequately documented, and included key players, we reviewed 

documents regarding the processes used to award both competitive and 

noncompetitive grants, and interviewed officials. We also analyzed data on

the timing, numbers, and amounts of the High Growth grants and whether 

they were awarded competitively and noncompetitively. To understand 

Labor’s internal procedures and requirements for awarding grants, we 

reviewed the Department of Labor’s Manual Series guidance for awarding 

noncompetitive grants, its guidelines for submitting a noncompetitive 

grant proposal, and several solicitations for grant applications, which are 

used to announce competitive grant proposals. In addition, we reviewed 

recommendations from the Domestic Working Group Grant Accountability 

Project’s report on awarding federal grants and the Standards for Internal 

Control. We also reviewed the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement

Act to determine the legal requirements for awarding noncompetitive 

grants. Finally, we reviewed Labor’s inspector general’s report on High 

Growth grants for findings concerning the procedures for awarding these 

grants noncompetitively. Labor also provided rosters of invitees and 

participants to its executive and solutions forums, which we analyzed to 

determine the numbers of state and local workforce participants at each of

the forums.

To address what Labor is doing to monitor the performance of grantees, 

we interviewed Labor officials regarding the monitoring process and 

reviewed a list of High Growth and Community Based grants that had been 

monitored. We reviewed examples of six grantee monitoring reports and 

the single audit report of one grantee we contacted. We also reviewed 

Labor’s monitoring procedures, but we did not assess their effectiveness. 

Page 31 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

In addition, we reviewed Labor’s inspector general’s reports on grantee 

performance data and on the single audit process. We conducted our work 

from May 2007 to May 2008 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

Page 32 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix II: High Growth, Community Based,

and WIRED Grantees through September 30, 

2007, by Initiative and State 

Table 5: High Growth Grantees 

Recipient name 

Total award

amount

Grantee 

state 

Other states 

where activities 

take place Sector Award method 

State of Alaska, Department of Labor 

and Workforce Development 

$7,000,000 AK Energy Sole source

University of Alaska 499,988 AK Healthcare Competitive

Alabama Dept of Economic And 

Community Affairs 

3,548,115 AL Advanced

manufacturing

Sole source 

Aerospace Development Center 1,898,820 AL CA, FL, TX, CO, 

CT, IL, NY, OH, 

VA, WA, WI 

Aerospace Sole source

Alabama Department of Economic & 

Community Affairs 

3,000,000 AL Non-sector specific Sole source 

State of Arkansas - Department of 

Workforce Services 

5,935,402 AR Advanced

Manufacturing

Sole source 

Arkansas Department of Workforce 

Services 

1,350,665 AR Transportation Sole source

Jobpath, Inc. 276,393 AZ Biotechnology Competitive

State of Arizona Department of 

Commerce 

3,403,168 AZ Information

Technology 

Sole source 

League for Innovation in the 

Community College 

500,000 AZ National Non-sector specific Sole source 

Alameda County Workforce 

Investment Board 

2,000,000 CA Biotechnology Sole source

San Bernardino Community College 

District 

1,618,334 CA Advanced

manufacturing

Sole source 

San Diego Workforce Partnership, Inc. 2,510,117 CA Biotechnology Sole source

Rancho Santiago Community College 

District 

187,939 CA MO Geospatial Sole source

County of Orange/OC Workforce 

Investment Board 

1,000,000 CA Biotechnology Competitive

City of Los Angeles/Community 

Development Department 

1,196,000 CA Healthcare Competitive

Los Angeles Valley College 1,500,000 CA Advanced 

manufacturing

Competitive 

International Association of 

Nanotechnology

1,500,000 CA Advanced

manufacturing

Competitive 

Colorado Department of Labor & 

Employment 

1,024,580 CO Healthcare Sole source

Colorado Department of Labor & 

Employment 

1,600,000 CO Healthcare Sole source

Pueblo Community College $658,519 CO Healthcare Sole source 

Appendix II: High Growth, Community 

Based, and WIRED Grantees through 

September 30, 2007, by Initiative and State 

Page 33 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix II: High Growth, Community Based,

and WIRED Grantees through September 30, 

2007, by Initiative and State 

Recipient name 

Total award

amount

Grantee 

state 

Other states 

where activities 

take place Sector Award method 

Geospatial Information & Technology 

Association 

695,362 CO National Geospatial Sole source

The Workplace, Inc. 2,000,000 CT Advanced 

manufacturing

Sole source 

The State of Connecticut, Department 

of Economic & Community 

Development 

2,748,405 CT Financial services Sole source 

CBIA Education Foundation 1,775,030 CT MA Advanced

manufacturing

Competitive 

Capital Workforce Partners 506,836 CT Healthcare Competitive

National Alliance of Business 813,000 DC National Non-sector specific Sole source 

U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 136,000 DC CA, FL Automotive Sole source 

Home Builders Institute 4,268,454 DC National Construction Sole source

National Foundation for the 

Advancement of Elder and Disabled 

Care in America 

104,929 DC National Healthcare Sole source

National Retail Federation Foundation 99,900 DC National Retail Sole source

National Retail Federation Foundation 5,065,000 DC Retail Sole source

Center for Energy Workforce 

Development 

98,270 DC National Energy Sole source

Arch Training Center, Inc. 269,193 DC Financial services Sole source 

The Association of Career 

Management Firms International 

60,000 DC National Non-sector specific Sole source 

National Center for Neighborhood 

Enterprise

99,635 DC AL Information

technology 

Sole source 

Council on Competitiveness 99,999 DC National Non-sector specific Sole Source 

Association of Career Firms North 

America 

99,000 DC National Non-sector specific Sole Source 

National Association of Workforce 

Boards 

200,000 DC National Non-sector specific Sole Source 

Delaware Workforce Investment Board 200,697 DE Biotechnology Sole source

Brevard Community College 88,252 FL National Aerospace Sole source 

Florida Space Research Institute, Inc. 355,628 FL Aerospace Sole source

Workforce Alliance, Incorporated 2,325,303 FL Biotechnology Sole source

Agency for Workforce Innovation 1,261,997 FL Healthcare Sole source 

Florida International University Board 

of Trustees, Office of Sponsored 

Research Administration 

1,419,266 FL Healthcare Sole source

Miami Dade College 1,000,000 FL Biotechnology Competitive

Page 34 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix II: High Growth, Community Based,

and WIRED Grantees through September 30, 

2007, by Initiative and State 

Recipient name 

Total award

amount

Grantee 

state 

Other states 

where activities 

take place Sector Award method 

Florida Agency for Workforce 

Innovation 

$793,000 FL Financial services Sole source 

Georgia Department of Labor 724,659 GA Healthcare Sole source 

UPS 1,789,970 GA National Transportation Sole source

University of Hawaii 1,400,000 HI Construction Sole source 

Indian Hills Community College 996,250 IA Biotechnology Sole source

Western Iowa Tech Community 

College 

1,498,548 IA NE, SD Advanced

manufacturing

Competitive 

Iowa Workforce Development 850,000 IA Non-sector specific Sole source 

Illinois Department of Employment 

Security 

5,086,538 IL Advanced

manufacturing

Sole source 

Council for Adult and Experimental 

Learning Center 

2,555,706 IL TX, MO, SD, WA Healthcare Sole source 

Comptia 2,818,795 IL National Information

technology 

Sole source 

Illinois State University 5,774,420 IL OH Advanced 

manufacturing

Sole source 

Chicago Women in Trades 2,092,343 IL Construction Sole source 

National Congress of Parents and 

Teachers 

480,000 IL National Non-sector specific Sole source 

Indianapolis Private Industry Council, 

Inc. 

1,000,000 IN Biotechnology Competitive

Ivy Tech Community College of 

Indiana 

1,860,515 IN Advanced

manufacturing

Competitive 

The Manufacturing Institute 498,520 KS Advanced 

manufacturing

Sole source 

Neosho County Community College 495,600 KS Healthcare Competitive

Henderson-Henderson County 

Chamber of Commerce 

2,991,840 KY Advanced

manufacturing

Sole source 

Catalyst Learning 2,000,000 KY IN, MD, VA, OH, 

PA 

Healthcare Sole source

West Kentucky Workforce Investment 

Board 

3,025,260 KY Energy Sole source

The Kentucky Community and 

Technical College System 

2,480,852 KY Automotive Sole source

Louisiana, Department of Labor 

Employment and Training 

3,000,000 LA Non-sector specific Sole source 

Board of Supervisors of Community 

and Technical Colleges 

4,998,800 LA Construction Sole source

Jobs for the Future, Inc. 927,068 MA National Non-sector specific Sole source 

Jobs for the Future, Inc. 4,190,052 MA National Non-sector specific Sole source 

Page 35 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix II: High Growth, Community Based,

and WIRED Grantees through September 30, 

2007, by Initiative and State 

Recipient name 

Total award

amount

Grantee 

state 

Other states 

where activities 

take place Sector Award method 

Youth Build USA $18,202,600 MA National Construction Sole source 

Massachusetts Biotechnology

Education Foundation 

1,372,250 MA Biotechnology Sole source

Maryland Department of Labor, 

Licensing and Regulation 

1,500,000 MD Healthcare Sole source

Maryland Department of Labor, 

Licensing and Regulation 

1,000,000 MD Non-sector specific Sole source 

Johns Hopkins Health System

Corporation 

3,237,411 MD Healthcare Sole source

Community Transportation 

Development Center 

2,000,000 MD DC, GA, OH, OR, 

PA 

Transportation Sole source

Paul Hall Institute of Human 

Development, Inc. 

2,499,618 MD HI, AK, Gulf 

Coast 

Transportation Sole source

360vu Research and Education

Foundation 

2,000,322 MD National Advanced

manufacturing

Sole source 

Maine Department of Economic And 

Community Development 

2,996,724 ME CT, MA, NH, RI, 

VT 

Advanced 

manufacturing

Sole source 

Automotive Youth Educational

Systems, Inc. 

600,000 MI National Automotive Sole source

Automotive Youth Educational

Systems, Inc. 

2,200,000 MI National Automotive Sole source

CVS Regional Learning Center 1,757,981 MI Healthcare Competitive

Northwest Michigan Council of 

Governments 

500,000 MI Healthcare Competitive

Downriver Community Conference 

Retraining 

5,000,000 MI Automotive Sole source

St. Louis City Workforce Investment 

Board 

1,499,998 MO Advanced

manufacturing

Sole source 

Carpenters’ Joint Apprenticeship 

Program 

2,187,107 MO Construction Sole source

University of Missouri – Columbia 2,305,995 MO Energy Sole source

University of Southern MississippiSchool of Engineering Tech 1,565,227 MS Geospatial Sole source

Mississippi Department of Employment 

Security 

3,000,000 MS Non-sector specific Sole source 

Mississippi Department of Employment 

Security 

5,000,000 MS Construction Sole source

MHA Health Research & Educational 

Foundation 

500,000 MS Healthcare Competitive

Forsyth Tech Community College 5,000,000 NC NH, IA, WA, CA Biotechnology Sole source 

Forsyth Tech Community College 754,146 NC Biotechnology Sole source 

Page 36 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix II: High Growth, Community Based,

and WIRED Grantees through September 30, 

2007, by Initiative and State 

Recipient name 

Total award

amount

Grantee 

state 

Other states 

where activities 

take place Sector Award method 

North Carolina Department of 

Commerce 

$1,500,000 NC Healthcare Sole source

Central Community College 1,639,403 NE SD, WY, IO, CO, 

KS 

Advanced 

manufacturing

Sole source 

San Juan College 2,113,127 NM UT, AZ, CO, WY Energy Sole source 

Southern Nevada Workforce 

Investment Board 

1,121,166 NV Hospitality Sole source

Girl Scouts of the USA 200,000 NY National Automotive Sole source 

Excelsior College 516,154 NY National Healthcare Sole source

Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute 999,902 NY National Healthcare Sole source

Orange County Workforce Investment 

Board 

1,048,300 NY Healthcare Competitive

Research Foundation of CUNY 494,386 NY Hospitality Sole source

Rochester Institute of Technology 1,158,983 NY Advanced

manufacturing

Competitive 

Workforce Investment Board of 

Herkimer, Madison and Oneida

Counties 

497,576 NY Healthcare Competitive

1199 SEIU League Grant Corporation 192,500 NY Healthcare Sole source

Berger Health System 200,000 OH Healthcare Sole source

Ohio Department of Job and Family 

Services 

4,296,624 OH Advanced

manufacturing

Sole source 

Ohio Board of Regents 1,178,425 OH FL, LA Financial services Sole source 

Techsolve, Inc. 1,464,670 OH Advanced 

manufacturing

Competitive 

Lake Land Community College 333,485 OH Biotechnology Sole source 

Lorain County Community College 2,599,979 OH Non-sector specific Sole source 

High Plains Technology Center 1,495,487 OK KS, TX Energy Sole source 

State of Oklahoma Department of 

Career and Technology Education 

2,363,539 OK TX, KS, AK Energy Sole source 

State of Oklahoma 1,500,000 OK Advanced

manufacturing

Competitive 

Columbia Gorge Community College 1,250,000 OR Healthcare Sole source 

Oregon Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership 

3,199,709 OR WA, ID Advanced

manufacturing

Sole source 

Oregon Department of Community 

Colleges and Workforce Development 

300,000 OR Healthcare Sole source

William F. Goodling Regional 

Advanced Skills Center 

990,125 PA Geospatial Sole source

Page 37 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix II: High Growth, Community Based,

and WIRED Grantees through September 30, 

2007, by Initiative and State 

Recipient name 

Total award

amount

Grantee 

state 

Other states 

where activities 

take place Sector Award method 

Pennsylvania Automotive Association 

Foundation 

$95,000 PA Automotive Sole source

Delaware Valley Industrial Resource 

Center 

3,000,000 PA Advanced

manufacturing

Sole source 

Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse 2,433,159 PA Biotechnology Sole source 

Lancaster County Workforce 

Investment Board 

1,354,585 PA Advanced

manufacturing

Sole source 

Pennsylvania Workforce Investment 

Board 

6,378,000 PA Advanced

manufacturing

Sole source 

The Pennsylvania State University 503,210 PA Energy Sole source 

International Association of Jewish 

Vocational Services 

1,000,000 PA CA, NJ Financial services Sole source 

Philadelphia Workforce Investment 

Board 

1,500,000 PA NJ, DE Advanced

manufacturing

Competitive 

Johnson & Wales University 977,992 RI Hospitality Sole source 

American College of the Building Arts 2,750,000 SC National Construction Sole source

Claflin University 750,000 SC Biotechnology Competitive

Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan 

Society 

1,877,517 SD ND, MN Healthcare Sole source 

Institute for GIS Studies 2,000,000 TN NC, MS Geospatial Sole source 

Hospital Corporation of America 4,000,000 TN National Healthcare Sole source

Texas Workforce Commission 1,453,115 TX Healthcare Sole source 

Eastfield College 837,424 TX Automotive Sole source 

Houston-Galveston Area Council 1,000,000 TX Aerospace Sole source 

Lower Rio Grande Valley Workforce 

Development Board 

2,000,000 TX Advanced

manufacturing

Sole source 

Community Learning Center, Inc. 1,168,400 TX Aerospace Sole source 

Community Learning Center, Inc. 2,779,408 TX Aerospace Sole source 

Valley Initiative for Development And 

Advancement 

4,000,000 TX Healthcare Sole source

Capital Investing in the Development & 

Education of Adults, Inc. 

224,088 TX Healthcare Sole source

Temple College 920,495 TX Biotechnology Competitive

United Regional Health Care System 846,325 TX Healthcare Competitive

Texas Workforce Commission 3,000,000 TX Non-sector specific Sole source 

North Central Texas Workforce 

Development Board 

1,562,382 TX Advanced

manufacturing

Competitive 

Management And Training Corporation 1,499,686 UT PA, OH, IL Healthcare Sole source 

University of Utah 871,707 UT Healthcare Competitive

Page 38 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix II: High Growth, Community Based,

and WIRED Grantees through September 30, 

2007, by Initiative and State 

Recipient name 

Total award

amount

Grantee 

state 

Other states 

where activities 

take place Sector Award method 

College of Eastern Utah $2,737,804 UT Energy Sole source

Kidz Online, Inc. 1,000,000 VA National Geospatial Sole source

National Institute For Automotive 

Service Excellence 

300,000 VA National Automotive Sole source

Greater Peninsula Workforce 

Development Consortium 

1,965,000 VA Advanced

manufacturing

Sole source 

The National Institute for Metalworking 

Skills, Inc. 

1,956,700 VA National Advanced

manufacturing

Sole source 

The National Institute for Metalworking 

Skills, Inc. 

939,815 VA National Advanced

manufacturing

Sole source 

Skills USA VICA 142,000 VA National Non-sector specific Sole source 

Automotive Retailing Today 150,000 VA National Automotive Sole source 

Virginia Biotechnology Association 1,494,369 VA MD Advanced 

manufacturing

Competitive 

Associated General Contractors 235,500 VA National Construction Sole source 

Vermont Department of Labor 570,688 VT Information 

technology 

Sole source 

Shoreline Community College 1,496,680 WA AK, ID, MT, OR, 

WA 

Automotive Sole source

Edmonds Community College 1,475,045 WA Aerospace Sole source 

Tacoma-Pierce County Employment & 

Training Consortium 

736,147 WA Healthcare Sole source

Gateway Technical College 900,000 WI National Automotive Sole source 

University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee 1,365,101 WI Healthcare Competitive

Wisconsin Healthcare Workforce 

Network 

215,600 WI Healthcare Sole source

West Virginia University Research 

Corporation on Behalf of West Virginia 

University 

3,000,000 WV Energy Sole source

State of Wyoming 2,400,000 WY Energy Sole source

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data. 

Page 39 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix II: High Growth, Community Based,

and WIRED Grantees through September 30, 

2007, by Initiative and State 

Table 6: Community Based Grantees 

Recipient name 

Total award

amount

Grantee 

state 

Other states where 

activities take place 

University of Alaska - Fairbanks Tanana Valley Campus $1,994,819 AK 

Calhoun Community College 2,465,656 AL 

Enterprise-Ozark Community College 1,636,688 AL 

George C. Wallace Community College 1,921,841 AL FL, GA

George C. Wallace Community College at Hanceville 1,600,606 AL 

H. Councill Trenholm State Technical College 3,018,928 AL 

Northwest-Shoals Community College 1,656,636 AL TN, MS 

Snead State Community College 1,560,550 AL 

Bevill State Community College 1,909,973 AL 

H. Councill Trenholm State Technical College 2,300,000 AL 

Northwest Arkansas Community College 1,895,564 AR 

Pulaski Technical College 1,271,550 AR 

UAM College of Technology - Mcgehee 1,620,000 AR 

South Arkansas Community College 1,573,688 AR 

Rich Mountain Community College 2,349,207 AR 

University of Arkansas Community College at Batesville 1,992,274 AR 

Arizona Western College 1,996,654 AZ

Central Arizona College 1,985,204 AZ

Yavapai College 1,394,475 AZ

Cypress Community College 1,663,164 CA 

Santa Monica College 1,393,442 CA 

Solano Community College 1,260,000 CA 

Board of Governors, California Community Colleges 1,992,481 CA 

West Hills Community College District 1,999,753 CA 

County of Merced 1,850,443 CA 

Contra Costa Community College 1,484,918 CA 

Aims Community College 818,691 CO

Otero Junior College 998,453 CO

Trinidad State Junior College 1,496,673 CO

Manchester Community College 2,147,325 CT

Manchester Community College 2,174,000 CT

Broward Community College 1,603,627 FL

Edison College 1,986,371 FL

Palm Beach Community College 1,561,713 FL

Pensacola Junior College 1,329,145 FL

Page 40 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix II: High Growth, Community Based,

and WIRED Grantees through September 30, 

2007, by Initiative and State 

Recipient name 

Total award

amount

Grantee 

state 

Other states where 

activities take place 

Santa Fe Community College $1,072,339 FL

St. Petersburg College 1,653,765 FL

Valencia Community College 1,999,392 FL

Broward Community College 1,998,621 FL

St. Petersburg College 1,246,869 FL

Florida Community College at Jacksonville 1,999,835 FL 

Polk Community College 2,000,000 FL

Darton College 2,484,456 GA

Georgia Perimeter College 1,513,281 GA

Savannah Technical College 1,298,411 GA

Atlanta Technical College 2,102,900 GA

Athens Technical College 1,996,326 GA

Northwest Iowa Community College 1,740,322 IA MN, SD, NE 

Eastern Iowa Community College District 1,564,012 IA IL 

College of Southern Idaho 1,459,411 ID NV, OR, UT, NY 

Idaho State University 1,996,958 ID 

Lake Land College 863,321 IL 

College of Dupage 1,422,342 IL 

Illinois Eastern Community Colleges, District #529 859,214 IL 

Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana 2,572,436 IN 

North Central Kansas Technical College 1,600,000 KS MO

Dodge City Community College 1,926,238 KS 

Madisonville Community College 1,210,008 KY 

Owensboro Community and Technical College 824,779 KY IN 

Bluegrass Community and Technical College 1,416,947 KY 

L.E. Fletcher Technical Community College 3,600,768 LA 

Southern University at Shreveport 1,992,240 LA 

Middlesex Community College at Bedford 853,736 MA 

Middlesex Community College 1,886,569 MA 

Hagerstown Community College 1,649,348 MD PA, WV

Anne Arundel Community College 2,077,137 MD 

Frederick Community College 1,997,776 MD 

The Community College of Baltimore County 2,585,471 MD 

Kennebec Valley Community College 955,831 ME 

Southern Maine Community College 2,214,394 ME 

Southwestern Michigan College 634,677 MI 

Page 41 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix II: High Growth, Community Based,

and WIRED Grantees through September 30, 

2007, by Initiative and State 

Recipient name 

Total award

amount

Grantee 

state 

Other states where 

activities take place 

Alpena Community College $1,941,935 MI 

Berrien Cass Van Buren Michigan Works! 1,937,112 MI IN 

Washtenaw Community College 150,357 MI 

Riverland Community College 2,219,453 MN 

The Junior College District of Kansas City - Missouri 1,970,252 MO

Texas County Technical Institute 1,949,954 MO

Coahoma Community College 2,250,560 MS 

Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College 1,928,457 MS 

Itawamba Community College 1,951,138 MS AL, TN

Montana State University - Billings College of Technology 1,980,042 MT

Montana State University- Billings College of Technology 1,998,885 MT

Trustees of Haywood Community College 1,696,974 NC 

United Tribes Technical College 1,463,996 ND 

Central Community College 1,910,185 NE 

Northeast Community College 1,999,999 NE 

NH Community Technical College - Manchester/Stratham 1,999,039 NH

Passaic County Community College 1,608,948 NJ 

Gloucester County College 2,000,000 NJ PA, DE 

Cumberland County College 1,632,530 NJ 

Clovis Community College 1,270,705 NM TX

Mesalands Community College 2,000,000 NM 

Suffolk County Community College 2,377,114 NY 

CUNY Kingsborough Community College 1,620,987 NY 

Cuyahoga Community College 1,863,833 OH

Cincinnati State Technical And Community College 1,493,299 OH

Edison State Community College 2,030,387 OH

City of Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Workforce Area 3 2,289,449 OH

Eastern Oklahoma State College, Inc. 1,786,780 OK

Chemeketa Community College 2,900,000 OR

Blue Mountain Community College 1,220,423 OR

Clackamas Community College 848,486 OR

Lane Community College 1,969,923 OR ID 

Harrisburg Area Community College 2,007,740 PA 

Northampton County Area Community College 713,025 PA 

Montgomery County Community College 1,371,264 PA 

Community College of Rhode Island 1,826,689 RI 

Page 42 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix II: High Growth, Community Based,

and WIRED Grantees through September 30, 

2007, by Initiative and State 

Recipient name 

Total award

amount

Grantee 

state 

Other states where 

activities take place 

Midlands Technical College $1,946,563 SC 

Cleveland State Community College 861,840 TN

Jackson State Community College 1,941,632 TN

Southwest Tennessee Community College 1,829,320 TN

Walters State Community College 1,939,796 TN

Alamo Community College District 1,344,569 TX

Amarillo College 1,386,525 TX

College of the Mainland 1,909,380 TX

Midland College 617,291 TX

North Central Texas College 1,999,564 TX

Southwest Texas Junior College 1,929,645 TX

Texas State Technical College Harlingen 2,064,161 TX

The Victoria County Junior College District 1,980,011 TX

Del Mar College 1,982,812 TX

Odessa College 1,751,178 TX

South Texas College 708,476 TX

Lamar State College - Orange 1,526,700 TX

College of Eastern Utah - San Juan Campus 1,260,893 UT AZ

Salt Lake Community College 1,997,759 UT

Blue Ridge Community College 1,937,786 VA 

Northern Virginia Community College 1,221,062 VA 

Piedmont Virginia Community College - Division of Workforce Services 1,479,497 VA 

Central Virginia Community College 1,249,527 VA 

Mountain Empire Community College 1,999,266 VA 

Columbia Basin College 1,992,675 WA

Seattle Central Community College 2,762,496 WA

Whatcom Community College 2,145,400 WA AK 

Everett Community College 2,000,000 WA

Waukesha County Technical College 2,307,306 WI

College of Menominee Nation 2,000,000 WI

Madison Area Technical College 1,961,110 WI

Milwaukee Area Technical College 1,999,999 WI

West Virginia State Community and Technical College 1,598,212 WV

Northern Wyoming Community College District - Gillette Campus 1,997,385 WY

Casper College 1,015,602 WY UT, OR, WA, ID, CA 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data. 

Page 43 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix II: High Growth, Community Based,

and WIRED Grantees through September 30, 

2007, by Initiative and State 

Table 7: WIRED Grantees 

Recipient name 

Total award

amount Grantee state

Other states where 

activities take place 

Alabama Department of Economic & Community Affairs $15,000,000 AL MS 

Alabama Department of Economic & Community Affairs 5,000,000 AL TN

Arkansas - Department of Workforce Services 5,000,000 AR 

Arizona Department of Commerce 5,000,000 AZ

State of California 15,000,000 CA 

California Employment Development Department 5,000,000 CA 

Colorado Department of Labor & Employment 15,000,000 CO

Connecticut Department of Labor 5,000,000 CT

State of Florida 15,000,000 FL

Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor 5,000,000 ID 

Indiana Department of Workforce Development 15,000,000 IN 

Indiana Department of Workforce Development 5,000,000 IN 

Kansas Department of Commerce 5,000,000 KS 

Kentucky Office of Employment and Training 5,000,000 KY 

Maine Department of Labor 14,402,780 ME 

Michigan Department of Labor 15,000,000 MI 

Michigan Department of Labor 14,996,953 MI 

Michigan Department of Labor (Detroit) 5,000,000 MI

Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development 5,000,000 MN 

Missouri Department of Economic Development 14,922,702 MO KS 

Missouri Division of Workforce Development 5,000,000 MO

Mississippi Department of Employment Security 5,000,000 MS 

Montana Department of Labor and Industry 15,000,000 MT

North Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of Employment 

and Training 

 14,685,000 NC 

New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development 5,000,000 NJ 

New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development 5,000,000 NJ 

New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions 5,000,000 NM 

New York Department of Labor 14,792,509 NY 

Governor’s Grant Office - Ohio 100,000 OH

Ohio Department of Job and Family Services 5,000,000 OH

Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce 

Development 

 5,000,000 OR

Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry 15,000,000 PA 

Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry 5,000,000 PA NJ, DE 

Page 44 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix II: High Growth, Community Based,

and WIRED Grantees through September 30, 

2007, by Initiative and State 

Recipient name 

Total award

amount Grantee state

Other states where 

activities take place 

Puerto Rico Department of Labor $5,000,000 PR 

Texas Workforce Commission 100,000 TX

State of Texas - Office of the Governor 5,000,000 TX

Utah Department of Workforce Services 5,000,000 UT

Virginia Employment Commission 5,000,000 VA 

Washington Employment Security Department 5,000,000 WA

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development 5,000,000 WI

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development 5,000,000 WI

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data. 

Page 45 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix III: Department of Labor Technical Appendix III: Department of Labor T Assistance Contracts echnical 

Assistance Contracts 

Table 8: Department of Labor Technical Assistance Contracts Related to High

Growth, Community Based, and WIRED Grant Initiatives 

Contractor

Contract 

amount

DTI Associates, Inc $23,236

DAH Consulting, Inc., and Aspen Institute 39,566

Coffey Communications, LLC 27,000

Coffey Communications, LLC 250,000

Jobs for the Future 30,000

M.H. West & Co., Inc. 1,499,977

TATC Consulting 1,892,947

Leonard Resource Group 700,000

DTI Associates, Inc 2,497,259

Berkeley Policy Associates Old H-1B Technical Skill Training Grant 

Program, recast for HG 

399,835

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 99,842

 DAH Consulting, Inc. 349,995

M.H. West & Co., Inc. 2,252,515

Technology & Management Services, Inc. 2,287,884

New Economy Strategies 3,750,000

Total $16,100,056

Source: U. S. Department of Labor

Page 46 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix IV Comments from the Department Appendix IV of Labor : Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 47 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix IV Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 48 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix IV Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 49 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix IV Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 50 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix IV Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 51 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix IV Comments from the Department 

of Labor 

Page 52 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Appendix V: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 53 GAO-08-486

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

George A. Scott, Director, 202-512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov

Patrick di Battista, Assistant Director, and Julianne Hartman Cutts 

managed this engagement. 

Karen A. Brown and Nancy Purvine, Senior Analysts, and Stephanie Toby, 

Analyst, made significant contributions to this report. Jean McSween 

provided methodological assistance, and Jessica Botsford provided legal 

assistance. The team also benefited from key technical assistance from 

Susan Aschoff, Pat L. Bohan, Paul Caban, Jessica Orr, Michael Springer, 

and Charles Willson. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Employment and Training Program Grants
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Improve the 

Workforce System. GAO-07-1061T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve 

Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program 

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

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

Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help 

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

22, 2006. 

National Emergency Grants: Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award 

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

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

Discretionary Grants: Further Tightening of Education’s Procedures for 

Making Awards Could Improve Transparency and Accountability. 

GAO-06-268. Washington, D.C.: February 21, 2006.

Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to 

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

Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2005

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. 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative 

Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting 

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

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

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

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

Public Community Colleges and Technical Schools: Most Schools Use 

Both Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development. 

GAO-05-4. Washington, D.C.: October 18, 2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed 

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

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

Page 54 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
Related GAO Products 

National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Assess 

Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO-04-496. Washington, 

D.C.: April 16, 2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve 

Quality of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. 

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

Workforce 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 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. 

(130658) Page 55 GAO-08-486 Employment and Training Program Grants
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

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

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

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

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

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

to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

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

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

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

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

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, DC 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 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@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 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER