Employment and Training Programs: Opportunities Exist for Improving Efficiency
Published: 2011-04-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: This testimony discusses the findings from our recent work on fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in federally funded employment and training programs and our prior work on the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). We recently issued two reports addressing fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in federal programs--one that outlined opportunities to reduce potential duplication across a wide range of federal programs and another that focused more specifically on employment and training programs. This work and our larger body of work in the area will help government policymakers address the rapidly building fiscal pressures facing our nation's government--pressures that stem, in part, from our mounting debt and sustained high unemployment. Our work to examine fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in employment and training programs has a long history. As early as the 1990s we issued a series of reports that raised questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of the federally funded employment and training system, and we concluded that a structural overhaul and consolidation of these programs was needed. Partly in response to these concerns, Congress passed WIA. The purpose of WIA, in part, was to transform the fragmented employment and training system into a coherent one, establishing a one-stop system that serves the needs of job seekers and employers. Since WIA was enacted, we have issued numerous reports that have included recommendations regarding many aspects of WIA, such as performance measures and accountability, one-stop centers, and training, among other topics. GAO's work has continued to find fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in employment and training programs. The area is characterized by a large number of programs with similar goals, beneficiaries, and allowable activities that are administered by multiple federal agencies. Fragmentation of programs exists when programs serve the same broad area of national need but are administered across different federal agencies or offices. Program overlap exists when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. Overlap and fragmentation among government programs or activities can be harbingers of unnecessary duplication. Given the challenges associated with fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication, careful, thoughtful actions will be needed to address these issues. This testimony discusses (1) what GAO has found regarding fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in federal employment and training programs, (2) the role that WIA activities can play in addressing these conditions, and (3) what additional information could help Congress minimize fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among these programs.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In summary, for fiscal year 2009, GAO identified 47 federally funded employment and training programs administered across nine agencies. Almost all of these programs overlap with at least one other program in that they provide at least one similar service to a similar population, but differences may exist in eligibility, objectives, and service delivery. WIA's structure provides the opportunity to reduce overlap and duplication because it requires that several of these programs provide services through the one-stop system, but they need not be on-site. Increasing colocation at one-stop centers, as well as consolidating state workforce and welfare administrative agencies could increase efficiencies, and several states and localities have undertaken such initiatives. To facilitate further progress in increasing administrative efficiencies, we recommended that the Secretaries of Labor and Health and Human Services (HHS) work together to develop and disseminate information about such efforts. Sustained congressional oversight is pivotal in addressing issues of fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication. Specifically, Congress could explore opportunities to enhance program evaluations and performance information and foster state and local innovation in integrating services and consolidating administrative structures.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the findings from our  recent work on fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in  federally funded employment and training programs and our prior work on  the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). As you know, we recently  issued two reports addressing fragmentation, overlap, and potential  duplication in federal programs—one that outlined opportunities to  reduce potential duplication across a wide range of federal programs and  another that focused more specifically on employment and training  programs. This work and our larger body of work in the area will help  government policymakers address the rapidly building fiscal pressures  facing our nation’s government—pressures that stem, in part, from our  mounting debt and sustained high unemployment.
Our work to examine fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in  employment and training programs has a long history. As early as the  1990s we issued a series of reports that raised questions about the  efficiency and effectiveness of the federally funded employment and  training system, and we concluded that a structural overhaul and  consolidation of these programs was needed. Partly in response to these  concerns, Congress passed WIA. The purpose of WIA, in part, was to  transform the fragmented employment and training system into a coherent  one, establishing a one-stop system that serves the needs of job seekers  and employers. Since WIA was enacted, we have issued numerous reports  that have included recommendations regarding many aspects of WIA, such  as performance measures and accountability, one-stop centers, and  training, among other topics.
GAO’s work has continued to find fragmentation, overlap, and potential  duplication in employment and training programs. The area is  characterized by a large number of programs with similar goals,  beneficiaries, and allowable activities that are administered by multiple  federal agencies. Fragmentation of programs exists when programs serve  the same broad area of national need but are administered across different  federal agencies or offices. Program overlap exists when multiple agencies  or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to  achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. Overlap and fragmentation  among government programs or activities can be harbingers of  unnecessary duplication. Given the challenges associated with  fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication, careful, thoughtful  actions will be needed to address these issues.
My testimony today will discuss (1) what GAO has found regarding  fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in federal employment and  training programs, (2) the role that WIA activities can play in addressing  these conditions, and (3) what additional information could help Congress  minimize fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among these programs.  In preparing this statement we relied on our previous work in these areas  (please see the related GAO products appendix). These products contain  detailed overviews of the scope and methodology we used. The work on  which this statement is based was performed in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we  plan and perform audits to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to  provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our  audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provided a  reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives.
In summary, for fiscal year 2009, GAO identified 47 federally funded  employment and training programs administered across nine agencies.  Almost all of these programs overlap with at least one other program in  that they provide at least one similar service to a similar population, but  differences may exist in eligibility, objectives, and service delivery. WIA’s  structure provides the opportunity to reduce overlap and duplication  because it requires that several of these programs provide services  through the one-stop system, but they need not be on-site. Increasing  colocation at one-stop centers, as well as consolidating state workforce  and welfare administrative agencies could increase efficiencies, and  several states and localities have undertaken such initiatives. To facilitate  further progress in increasing administrative efficiencies, we  recommended that the Secretaries of Labor and Health and Human  Services (HHS) work together to develop and disseminate information  about such efforts. Sustained congressional oversight is pivotal in  addressing issues of fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication.  Specifically, Congress could explore opportunities to enhance program  evaluations and performance information and foster state and local  innovation in integrating services and consolidating administrative  structures.
subsections: section_title: GAO Identified 47 Federal Employment and Training Programs, and Most Overlapped with at Least One Other Program
paragraphs: For fiscal year 2009, we identified 47 federally funded employment and  training programs administered across nine agencies, primarily the  Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services (HHS)  (for a list of programs and agencies, see appendix I). These programs  reported spending approximately $18 billion on employment and training  services in fiscal year 2009. Seven programs accounted for about three- fourths of this spending, including the WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, and  Youth programs, which spent nearly $6 billion on employment and training  services (see table 1). Most participants received employment and training  services through one of two programs: Employment Service/Wagner- Peyser Funded Activities (Employment Service) and WIA Adult. Together,  these two programs reported serving over 18 million individuals, or about  77 percent of the total number of participants served across all programs.
Almost all programs overlap with at least one other program, but  differences may exist in eligibility, objectives, and service delivery. Forty- four of the 47 programs, which include broad multipurpose block grants,  overlap with at least one other program, in that they provide at least one  similar service to a similar population. Some of these overlapping  programs serve multiple population groups, while others target specific  populations, and some programs require participants to be economically  disadvantaged. The target populations being served by the most programs  are Native Americans, veterans, and youth. For example, all 8 programs  that target Native Americans provide seven similar types of employment  and training services. However, some individuals within a population  group may be eligible for one program, but not another because program  eligibility criteria differ. One of the programs targeting Native Americans,  for example, serves only disabled Native Americans residing on or near a  federal or state reservation, and another program serves only Native  Hawaiians.
Some efforts have been made to address overlap in programs and services.  Officials from 27 of the 47 programs reported that their agencies have  coordinated efforts with other federal agencies that provide similar  services to similar populations. For example, Labor and HHS issued a joint  letter encouraging state-administered youth programs to partner together  using funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009  (Recovery Act) to promote subsidized employment opportunities. In  addition, an official from the Department of the Interior reported that the  agency works with Labor and HHS to coordinate programs for Native  Americans. Under law, Native American tribes are allowed significant  flexibility to combine funding from multiple programs. Moreover, as  part of its proposed WIA reforms, the Administration is proposing  consolidating 4 employment and training programs administered by  Education into 1 program. The Administration also proposes  consolidating Education’s Career and Technical Education – Basic Grants  to States and Tech-Prep Education programs, at the same time reducing  program funding. In addition, the budget proposal would transfer the  Senior Community Service Employment Program from Labor to HHS.
Three of the largest programs maintain separate administrative structures  to provide some of the same services. The Temporary Assistance for  Needy Families (TANF), Employment Service, and WIA Adult programs  provide some of the same employment and training services—such as job  search and job referral services—to low-income individuals, although  there are differences between the programs (see figure 1). The TANF  program serves low-income families with children, while the Employment  Service and WIA Adult programs serve all adults, including low-income  individuals. All three programs share a common goal of helping  individuals secure employment, and the TANF and WIA Adult programs  also aim to reduce welfare dependency. However, employment is only one  aspect of the TANF program, which also has three other broad social  service goals: to assist needy families so that children can generally be  cared for in their own homes, to reduce and prevent out-of-wedlock  pregnancies, and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two- parent families. As a result, TANF provides a wide range of other services  beyond employment and training, including cash assistance.
Although the extent to which individuals receive the same employment  and training services from TANF, the Employment Service, and WIA Adult  is unknown, the programs maintain separate administrative structures to  provide some of the same services to low-income individuals. Data  limitations make it difficult to assess duplication of services, but Labor  officials estimate that in program year 2008 approximately 4.5 percent of  all WIA Adult participants who received training—about 4,500 of the  nearly 100,000 participants who exited the program—were also receiving  TANF. However, it is unclear whether the WIA Adult participants who self- identify as TANF recipients have received TANF employment and training  services. Nonetheless, the three programs maintain separate  administrative structures. At the federal level, the TANF program is  administered by HHS, and the Employment Service and WIA Adult  programs are administered by Labor. At the state level, the TANF program  is typically administered by state human services or welfare agencies,  while the other two programs are typically administered by state  workforce agencies. At the local level, Employment Service and WIA Adult  services are generally provided through the one-stop centers, while TANF  employment and training services may be administered through the one- stop or through other structures. Federal agency officials acknowledged  that greater administrative efficiencies could be achieved in delivering  these services, but also said that other factors, such as the proximity of  services to clients, could warrant having multiple entities providing the  same services.
section_title: WIA’s Structure Provides the Opportunity to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication
paragraphs: Congress passed WIA partly in response to concerns about fragmentation  and inefficiencies in federal employment and training programs. WIA  authorized several employment and training programs—including Job  Corps and programs for Native Americans, migrant and seasonal  farmworkers, and veterans—as well as the Adult Education and Literacy  program. WIA replaced the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)  programs for economically disadvantaged adults and youths and  dislocated workers with three new programs—WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated  Worker, and WIA Youth. The Adult and Dislocated Worker programs  provide three tiers, or levels, of service: core, intensive, and training. Core  services include basic services such as job search assistance and labor  market information and they may be self-service in nature. Intensive  services may include such activities as comprehensive assessment and  case management—activities that require greater staff involvement.  Training services may include occupational skills or on-the-job training.  Beyond authorizing these programs, WIA also established one-stop centers  in all local areas and mandated that many federal employment and  training programs provide services through the centers.
subsections: section_title: Thirteen Categories of Employment and Training Programs Must Provide Services Through the One- Stop System
paragraphs: Under WIA, sixteen different categories of programs, administered by four  federal agencies, must provide services through the one-stop system,  according to Labor officials. Thirteen of these categories include  programs that meet our definition of an employment and training program,  and three categories do not, but offer other services to jobseekers who  need them (see figure 2). These thirteen program categories represent  about 40 percent of the federal appropriations for employment and  training programs in fiscal year 2010.
Figure 2. Categories of Programs Required to Provide Services Through the One-Stop System and Related Federal Agencies  D e pt. of E■ Adlt Edtion nd Litercy      ■ WIA Adlt, Yoth,     nd Dilocted Worker ■ Voctionl Edtion (Perkin Act)
One-stop centers serve as the key access point for a range of services that  help unemployed workers re-enter the workforce—such as job search  assistance, skill assessment and case management, occupational skills and  on-the-job training, basic education and literacy training, as well access to  Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits and other supportive services— and they also assist employers in finding workers. Any person visiting a  one-stop center may look for a job, receive career development services,  and gain access to a range of vocational education programs. In our 2007  study, we found that a typical one-stop center in many states offered  services for 8 or 9 required programs on-site, and one state offered  services for 16 required programs on-site.
In addition to required programs, one-stop centers have the flexibility to  include other, optional programs in the one-stop system, such as TANF,  the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment and  Training Program, or other community-based programs, which helps them  better meet specific state and local workforce development needs. The  Dayton, Ohio one-stop center, for example, boasts over 40 programs on- site at the 8-1/2 acre facility, including an organization that provides free  business attire to job seekers who need it, an alternative high school  program that assists students in obtaining a diploma, and organizations  providing parenting and self-sufficiency classes. Under WIA, services may  also be provided at affiliated sites—designated locations that provide  access to at least one employment and training program.
While WIA requires certain programs to provide services through the one- stop system, it does not provide additional funds to operate one-stop  systems and support one-stop infrastructure. As a result, required  programs are expected to share the costs of developing and operating one- stop centers. In 2007, we reported that WIA programs and the Employment  Service program were the largest funding sources states used to support  the infrastructure—or nonpersonnel costs—of their comprehensive one- stop centers. For program year 2005, of the 48 states that could provide  funding information, 23 states identified WIA programs as the primary  funding source and 19 states reported it was the Employment Service  program. In addition, 27 states reported using TANF funds to pay for part  of their one-stop center infrastructure costs, and 3 states identified TANF  as the primary funding source. In 2007, TANF was on-site at a typical one- stop in 30 states.
section_title: Increasing Colocation of Services in One-Stop Centers and Consolidating State Administrative Structures May Increase Efficiencies
paragraphs: One-stop centers required under WIA provide an opportunity for a broad  array of federal employment and training programs—both required and  optional programs—to coordinate their services and avoid duplication.  Although WIA does not require that programs be colocated within the one- stop center, this is one option that programs may use to provide services  within the one-stop structure. Labor’s policy is to encourage colocation of  all required programs to the extent possible; however, officials  acknowledged that colocation is one of multiple means for achieving  service integration. We previously reported that colocating services can  result in improved communication among programs, improved delivery of  services for clients, and elimination of duplication. While colocation does  not guarantee efficiency improvements, it affords the potential for sharing  resources and cross-training staff, and may lead, in some cases, to the  consolidation of administrative systems, such as information technology  systems. Our early study of promising one-stop practices found that the  centers nominated as exemplary did just that—they cross-trained program  staff, consolidated case management and intake procedures across  multiple programs, and developed shared data systems. Other types of  linkages between programs, such as electronic linkages or referrals, may  not result in the same types of efficiency improvements, but they may still  present opportunities to streamline services.
Consolidating administrative structures and colocating services may  increase efficiencies, but implementation could pose challenges. Florida,  Texas, and Utah have consolidated their workforce and welfare agencies  and officials said that this reduced costs and improved the quality of  services for participants, but they could not provide a dollar figure for cost  savings. Even when states consolidate their agencies, they must still follow  separate requirements for individual programs. With regard to colocating  services, WIA Adult and the Employment Service are generally colocated  in one-stop centers, but TANF employment and training services are  colocated in one-stops to a lesser extent. Efforts to increase colocation  could prove challenging due to issues such as limited available office  space, differences in client needs and the programs’ client service  philosophies, and the need for programs to help fund the operating costs  of the one-stop centers. While states and localities have undertaken some  potentially promising initiatives to achieve greater administrative  efficiencies, little information is available about the strategies and results  of these initiatives, so it is unclear the extent to which practices in these  states could serve as models for others. Moreover, little is known about  the incentives states and localities have to undertake such initiatives and  whether additional incentives may be needed.
We recently recommended that the Secretaries of Labor and HHS work  together to develop and disseminate information that could inform such  efforts, including information on state initiatives to consolidate program  administrative structures and state and local efforts to colocate additional  programs at one-stop centers. As part of this effort, we recommended that  Labor and HHS examine the incentives for states and localities to  undertake such initiatives and, as warranted, identify options for  increasing them. In their responses, Labor and HHS agreed with our  recommendations. In addition, GAO is currently examining innovative  one-stop strategies to enhance collaboration with employers and  economic development partners to better meet local labor market needs.
To the extent that colocating services and consolidating administrative  structures reduce administrative costs, funds could potentially be  available to serve more clients or for other purposes. For the TANF  program alone, GAO estimated that states spent about $160 million to  administer employment and training services in fiscal year 2009. According  to a Department of Labor official, the administrative costs for the WIA  Adult program were at least $56 million in program year 2009. Officials  told GAO they do not collect data on the administrative costs associated  with the Employment Service program, as they are not a separately  identifiable cost in the legislation. Labor officials said that, on average, the  agency spends about $4,000 for each WIA Adult participant who receives  training services.
section_title: Congress Needs Better Information on Program Performance to Address Fragmentation, Overlap, and Potential Duplication in Employment and Training Programs
paragraphs: Making informed decisions about where to invest scarce resources  requires information about what’s working and what’s not but, despite  improvements, performance data do not provide a complete picture of the  employment and training system. Nearly all employment and training  programs track multiple outcome measures and many programs track  similar measures—most often an “entered employment” rate (the number  of participants who found jobs), employment retention, and wage gain or  change. We have made a number of recommendations regarding the  performance management systems of the key employment and training  programs, and Labor has made some progress addressing our concerns.  However, two issues remain. First, only a small proportion of job seekers  who receive services at one-stops are reflected in WIA outcome data.  While customers who use self-services are estimated to be the largest  portion of those served under WIA, job seekers who receive self-service or  informational services are specifically excluded from performance  calculations by the statute. Second, WIA’s performance measurement  system contains no provision for measuring overall one-stop performance,  relying instead on a program-by-program approach that cannot easily be  used to assess the overall performance of the one-stop system.
Information about the effectiveness of these programs can also help guide  policymakers and program managers in making decisions about how to  improve, coordinate, or consolidate existing programs. However, little is  known about the effectiveness of employment and training programs  because only 5 of the 47 programs reported that they had conducted any  impact studies since 2004. Impact studies, which allow for determining  the extent to which a program is causing participant outcomes, can be  difficult and expensive to conduct because they take steps to examine  what would have happened in the absence of a program to isolate its  impact from other factors. Such studies may not be cost-effective for  smaller programs, particularly in periods of tight budgets, but strategically  chosen impact studies can be an important means for understanding  where efficiencies can be achieved. Labor has been slow to comply with a  requirement to conduct a multi-site control group evaluation of the WIA- funded programs. In 2004 and 2007, we recommended that Labor comply  with the requirements of the law and conduct an impact evaluation of WIA  services to better understand what services are most effective for  improving outcomes. Since then, Labor has completed a nonexperimental  study of the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and also has an  experimental design impact study of these programs currently under way.  The nonexperimental study found that the WIA Adult program had  positive impacts on average earnings up to 4 years after participant entry,  but noted that the magnitude of this effect could have been due to the  selection of applicants with greater income prior to participation and  better job prospects. The study found that the impacts for participants in  the Dislocated Worker program were also positive, but smaller. Labor  expects that the experimental design impact study currently underway will  examine impact by funding stream, but will not be completed until June  2015.
Understanding how well the one-stop system is reducing fragmentation  through coordinated service delivery would be useful in deciding where  efficiencies could be achieved, but no study has been undertaken to  evaluate the effectiveness of the one-stop system approach. While a few  program impact studies have been done or are underway, these studies  largely take a program-by-program approach rather than focusing on  understanding which approaches are most effective in streamlining service  delivery and improving one-stop efficiency. In addition, Labor’s efforts to  collaborate with other agencies to assess the effects of different strategies  to integrate job seeker services have been limited. We previously  recommended that Labor collaborate with Education, HHS, and HUD to  develop a research agenda that examines the impacts of various  approaches to program integration on job seeker and employer  satisfaction and outcomes. Labor has committed to collaborating with  other agencies and has involved them in developing inter-agency initiatives  for certain targeted activities, but has not yet evaluated the effectiveness  of the one-stop system.
In January 2011, the President signed the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010  (GPRAMA), further amending the almost two-decades-old Government  Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).  Implementing provisions  of the new act—such as its requirement to establish outcome-oriented  goals covering a limited number of crosscutting policy areas—could play  an important role in clarifying desired outcomes, addressing program  performance spanning multiple organizations, and facilitating future  actions to reduce unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation.  Specifically, GPRAMA requires (1) disclosure of information about  accuracy and validity, (2) data on crosscutting areas, and (3) quarterly  reporting on priority goals on a publicly available Web site. Additionally,  GPRAMA significantly enhances requirements for agencies to consult with  Congress when establishing or adjusting governmentwide and agency  goals. This information can inform deliberations on spending priorities  and help re-examine the fundamental structure, operation, funding, and  performance of a number of federal programs. However, to be successful,  it will be important for agencies to build the analytical capacity to both use  the performance information, and to ensure its quality—both in terms of  staff trained to do the analysis and availability of research and evaluation  resources.
In conclusion, removing and preventing unnecessary duplication, overlap,  and fragmentation among federal employment and training programs is  clearly challenging. These are difficult issues to address because they may  require agencies and Congress to re-examine within and across various  mission areas the fundamental structure, operation, funding, and  performance of a number of long-standing federal programs and activities.  Implementing provisions of GPRAMA could play an important role in  clarifying desired outcomes, addressing program performance spanning  multiple organizations, and facilitating future actions to reduce  unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation.
Sustained attention and oversight by Congress will also be critical. Our  work highlights two key areas where congressional oversight could  facilitate progress:    Enhancing program evaluations and performance information; and    Fostering state and local innovation in integrating services and  consolidating administrative structures.
As the nation rises to meet its current fiscal challenges, GAO will continue  to assist Congress and federal agencies in identifying actions needed to  address these issues. Likewise, we will continue to monitor developments  in the areas we have already identified.
Chairman Rehberg, Ranking Member DeLauro, and Members of the  Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to  respond to any questions you may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at  (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions  to this testimony include Dianne Blank, Caitlin Croake, Pamela Davidson,  Patrick Dibattista, Alex Galuten, Andrew Nelson, Paul Schearf, and  Kathleen Van Gelder.
section_title: Appendix I: Federally Funded Employment and Training Programs by Agency, Fiscal Year 2009
paragraphs: Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government  Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-441T.  Washington, D.C.: March 3, 2011.
Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government  Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP.  Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2011.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information  on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures  Could Promote Efficiencies. GAO-11-92. Washington, D.C.: January 13,  2011.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Made Progress in Addressing  Areas of Concern, but More Focus Needed on Understanding What Works  and What Doesn’t. GAO-09-396T. Washington, D.C.: February 26, 2009.
Workforce Development: Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers  Collaborate to Meet 21st Century Workforce Needs. GAO-08-547.  Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2008.
Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop System Infrastructure Continues to  Evolve, but Labor Should Take Action to Require That All Employment  Service Offices Are Part of the System. GAO-07-1096. Washington, D.C.:  September 4, 2007.
Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve  the Workforce System. GAO-07-1051T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007.
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: 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.
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.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and  Performance Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington,  D.C.: April 18, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: States’ Spending Is on Track, but Better  Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting. GAO-03-239. Washington,  D.C.: November 22, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding  Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274.  Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2002.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Overlapping Programs  Indicate Need for Closer Examination of Structure. GAO-01-71.  Washington, D.C.: October 13, 2000.
Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of  TANF Services. GAO/T-HEHS-00-145. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Information Crosswalk on  163 Employment Training Programs. GAO/HEHS-95-85FS. Washington,  D.C.: February 14, 1995.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to  Reduce Costs, Streamline the Bureaucracy, and Improve Results.  GAO/T-HEHS-95-53. Washington, D.C.: January 10, 1995.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlap Among Programs  Raises Questions About Efficiency. GAO/HEHS-94-193. Washington, D.C.:  July 11, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements  Underscore Need for Change. GAO/T-HEHS-94-120. Washington, D.C.:  March 10, 1994.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Major Overhaul is  Needed. GAO/T-HEHS-94-109. Washington, D.C.: March 3, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Can  Add Unnecessary Administrative Costs. GAO/HEHS-94-80. Washington,  D.C.: January 28, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements  Hamper Delivery of Services. GAO/HEHS-94-78. Washington, D.C.:  January 28, 1994.
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.