Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act: Information on Planned Changes to State Performance Reporting and Related Challenges
Published: 2016-03-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Enacted in 2014, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act brought numerous changes to existing federal employment and training programs, including requiring DOL and Education to implement a common performance accountability system across the six WIOA-designated core programs.
WIOA includes a provision for GAO to issue an interim and final report on issues related to job training databases and data exchange agreements. This final report addresses (1) changes selected states plan to make in how they collect and report performance information for core programs; (2) challenges these states face related to performance reporting and how they might be addressed; and (3) whether these states have reported breaches to core program data systems and what practices they have to safeguard personal information.
GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and policy guidance; and obtained information on the efforts under way in three states (Illinois, New Hampshire, and Texas) selected in part based on variation in level of experience with sharing data across programs. The views of these officials provide in-depth examples but are not generalizable to all states. GAO also interviewed DOL and Education officials, including selected DOL regional officials and Education state liaisons and area coordinators to obtain perspectives on more states.
GAO makes no recommendations in this report. In its comments on a draft of this report, DOL highlighted its efforts with Education to promote a unified vision of performance accountability.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: To implement the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the 2014 law governing the nation's employment and training programs, the three states GAO visited are considering performance reporting changes such as integrating data systems and using new data sources. GAO selected states with varying levels of experience sharing data across programs. According to the Departments of Education (Education) and Labor (DOL), WIOA is intended, in part, to improve the consistency of states' performance reporting compared to reporting under the law it replaced, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. For six core DOL and Education programs, WIOA establishes common indicators of performance in areas such as employment and earnings, and encourages states to integrate data systems related to these indicators. In the states GAO visited—Illinois, New Hampshire, and Texas—efforts to integrate data systems varied. For example, Texas is consolidating programs in one agency and building an integrated data system and Illinois is discussing integration options across the four agencies housing its programs. Officials in all three states expect changes in how they collect and report performance information. Though specific reporting requirements are not yet final, core programs—especially those administered by Education—face substantial changes. For example, Education programs in these states are exploring new ways to collect earnings data, such as adding survey questions or obtaining greater access to unemployment insurance wage records.
Program officials in the three states GAO visited identified challenges to WIOA performance reporting, including:
Limited guidance. Officials in all three states said early implementation was slowed because WIOA regulations are not yet final and certain details about performance reporting are not yet resolved. In the interim, DOL and Education have offered states additional guidance.
Cost and complexity of integrating data systems. Officials in Illinois and New Hampshire said that resource constraints pose challenges to integrating data systems. Among efforts to help defray integration costs, DOL and Education have sought additional federal funding for states.
Data quality concerns. Missing participant data may continue to affect the quality of information states report to federal agencies. For example, some states reported using participant surveys to collect employment data due to challenges with state privacy laws. In addition, federal law generally allows participants to opt out of providing Social Security numbers (SSNs). Officials in the states GAO visited said many participants in one of the Education-administered programs do not provide SSNs, making it harder to match data to track their outcomes and participation in other programs.
Officials in the three states GAO visited reported no intrusions into their data systems in recent years. Officials in two states did report other occasional security breaches that may have resulted in inappropriate exposure of personally identifiable information for small numbers of people in limited circumstances; for example, emails that included participant SSNs. Officials in all three states reported taking steps to limit and protect the participant information they collect, such as monitoring and controlling data access.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In 2014, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) brought  changes to the programs that create a foundation for the nation’s  employment and job training system. WIOA requires that the  Departments of Labor (DOL) and Education (Education) collaborate to  implement a common performance accountability system for six core  programs, which the agencies note is a historic opportunity to align  definitions, streamline performance indicators, and integrate reporting  across programs. These core programs, which DOL and Education  administer primarily through grants to state agencies, are: Title I Adult,  Title I Dislocated Worker, Title I Youth, Wagner-Peyser Employment  Services (Wagner-Peyser), Adult Education and Family Literacy Act  (Adult Education), and State Vocational Rehabilitation Services  (Vocational Rehabilitation or VR). WIOA establishes six performance  indicators for these core programs related to participants’ employment  status, earnings, and skills gains, and for effectiveness in serving  employers. Under the prior law, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998  (WIA), all six programs reported on performance related to employment  and most reported on performance related to earnings. However,  indicators varied considerably across several of the programs. WIOA’s  establishment of uniform indicators of performance across all six core  programs represents a noticeable change.
Section 505 of WIOA includes a provision for GAO to issue an interim and  final report on various issues related to federal and state databases and  data exchange agreements containing job training information relevant to  WIOA. We provided an interim briefing on July 22, 2015, focusing on the  current state of performance reporting for the core programs and the data  systems and exchange agreements in place at the federal level, and  issued the briefing publicly on September 23, 2015. In this final report,  we focus on performance reporting, data systems, and related issues for  core programs at the state level by examining (1) changes selected states  plan to make in how they collect and report performance information for  core programs; (2) challenges core programs in selected states face  related to performance reporting and how they might be addressed; and  (3) whether selected states have reported breaches to core program data  systems and what practices they have to safeguard personal information.
In conducting this work, we focused on collecting detailed information on  the practices and perspectives of the six core WIOA programs at the state  level. We conducted site visits and interviewed program officials in three  states—Illinois, New Hampshire, and Texas—selected to capture  variation in level of experience with sharing data, geographic location,  and population size. We considered data sharing experience based  largely on the extent to which states have previously matched individuals’  records across education and workforce sectors and the  recommendations of knowledgeable officials. The views of officials in the  three selected states cannot be generalized to all states, but instead  provide in-depth case studies at the state level. To obtain supplementary  information covering additional states, we interviewed selected DOL and  Education regional officials, state liaisons, and area coordinators, who  work with the core programs in multiple states. We reviewed relevant  federal laws, regulations, and guidance, and interviewed officials  responsible for administering the programs in DOL’s Employment and  Training Administration (ETA) and Education’s Rehabilitation Services  Administration (RSA) and Office of Career, Technical, and Adult  Education (OCTAE), as well as other knowledgeable individuals. Through  our interviews, we obtained information on key changes and challenges  states are facing in the early stages of implementing the requirements of  WIOA, among other things. We also obtained information on the data  systems and security practices the three states have in place, but we did  not evaluate the quality or sufficiency of their practices, audit their  information technology systems, or investigate specific security breaches.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2015 to March 2016 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Among other things, WIOA requires that DOL and Education collaborate  to implement a common performance accountability system for the six  core programs identified in the law (see table 1).
For the core programs, WIOA establishes six performance indicators on  which states must report, with some exceptions (see table 2).
As shown in figure 1, programs are required to begin using the WIOA  common performance indicators as of July 2016, two years after the law  was enacted and just under six months after final regulations are due.  DOL and Education officials are responsible for providing technical  assistance and imposing sanctions on states that do not meet  performance expectations. DOL and Education issued joint proposed  regulations in April 2015 that, among other things, covered WIOA  performance reporting, and in July 2015, issued a joint proposed  performance reporting template. DOL issued additional proposed  reporting details in September 2015. Final regulations, reflecting any  changes based on public comments and agency review, will, among other  things, form the basis for states’ implementation of WIOA.
subsections: section_title: Data Integration, Access, and Security
paragraphs: WIOA emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive system that  provides integrated, seamless services to all job seekers and workers and  effective strategies that meet employers’ workforce needs. DOL and  Education note that the development of integrated data systems will allow  for unified and streamlined participant intake (i.e., application and  registration), case management, and service delivery; minimize the  duplication of data; ensure consistently defined and applied data  elements; facilitate compliance with reporting requirements; and provide  meaningful information about core program participation to inform  operations.
WIOA also requires states to use quarterly wage records, consistent with  state law, to measure program performance (e.g., Unemployment  Insurance (UI) wage records). Prior to WIOA, coordination among DOL- administered programs to share wage records for performance reporting  was common, but access to and use of these data were less common for  Education-administered programs. To help states obtain the data needed  for performance reporting, particularly when participants are employed in  another state or with the federal government, DOL currently funds three  data exchange systems that allow agencies reporting on performance to  access other states’ UI wage records or federal employment data: Wage  Record Interchange System (WRIS); Wage Record Interchange System 2  (WRIS2); and Federal Employment Data Exchange System (FEDES).  States compile and submit program performance data to federal systems  either in aggregate or by individual participant, depending on the  program.
Personally identifiable information (PII) for program participants, such as  names, addresses and Social Security numbers (SSNs), among other  things, is often shared between entities to link individual records across  data systems and to collect program outcome information from state  education and employment and training agencies. Because security  breaches involving PII can be hazardous to individuals and organizations,  protecting the privacy of sensitive information on program participants is a  concern for DOL, Education, and its state and local partners. The Fair  Information Practice Principles outline a set of eight key principles for  protecting PII, including limiting the collection of personal information,  disclosing how collected information will be used and obtaining consent  from the individual, and protecting collected information with reasonable  security safeguards against risks such as loss or unauthorized access.  The eight principles are transparency, individual participation, purposes  specification, data minimization, use limitation, data quality and integrity,  security, and accountability and auditing.
section_title: Performance Reporting Process Prior to WIOA
paragraphs: While the performance reporting process is broadly similar across states,  data system administration, the methods used to collect participant  outcome data, and other specific practices vary by state and program. As  we have reported previously, to fulfill program performance reporting  requirements, state agencies generally collect participant identification  and outcome data from local agencies and other sources, and then send  performance reports to federal agencies (see fig. 2).
section_title: Officials in Selected States Anticipate Changes in How They Collect and Report Performance Data, Such As Integrating Data Systems, Though the Full Extent is Not Yet Known
subsections: section_title: Programs Vary in How they Currently Collect and Report Performance Data
paragraphs: To store participant data used for federal performance reporting, as well  as for other program management purposes, each WIOA core program in  the states we visited has its own case management data system (see  table 3). Some of these systems were developed by the respective state  or program and others were purchased from vendors. These data  systems are used for case and program management and to compile  program data used for federal performance reporting. The systems store  participant information, such as personal identification; track program  services, such as training received; and, in some cases, compile data on  outcomes, such as employment or degree attainment. With the exception  of the Texas Title I and Wagner-Peyser programs, the data systems are  independent of each other, though in some instances, officials said data  from the systems can be shared under established sharing agreements  between agencies. For example, the VR program in Illinois has data  sharing agreements in place with the Illinois agency that holds UI wage  data and with the Social Security Administration to provide SSNs for data  matching.
The performance reporting process varies based on program-specific  circumstances, such as the source of reported participant outcome  information and how automated the data collection and reporting  processes are. Most programs in the three states we visited currently  collect the employment outcome information reported to DOL and  Education by matching participant data to state UI wage records.  However, the VR program in all three of the states we visited currently  collects employment information through individual outreach to program  participants because program staff communicate regularly with  participants and can readily obtain this information. In addition, the Adult  Education program in New Hampshire collects employment outcome  information by surveying participants. According to OCTAE, in the 2013- 14 performance year, the Adult Education programs in four additional  states—Arizona, California, Hawaii, and New York—and the District of  Columbia also collected participant employment information solely by  surveying participants. As shown in case study 1 (see textbox), within  the same state, programs may collect information differently. In New  Hampshire, for example, Title I programs rely on data matching and the  VR program relies on participant self-reporting and some data matching.  Even when programs rely on similar sources of information, they  sometimes use different mechanisms for obtaining and reporting  participant information. For example, in New Hampshire Title I programs,  a single official personally compiles participant outcome data and submits  performance reports to DOL after the data are reviewed and approved by  Title I management staff. According to the official, he obtains the outcome  data from UI wage records through a standardized exchange with another  state agency, New Hampshire Employment Security (see textbox). A data  sharing agreement governs this process. Title I programs in Illinois  similarly obtain participants’ employment information from UI wage  records by exchanging data with the Illinois Department of Employment  Security in accordance with a formal sharing agreement. In Texas, the  reporting process is more automated for Title I programs, as participant  data is automatically merged with UI wage data on a regular basis and  then extracted into a federal data reporting system.
Case Study 1: Performance Reporting Processes Vary by Program in New  Hampshire Title I Programs (DOL-administered): Local office staff enter information about  participants, including services received, into the program’s case management data  system. To collect employment and earnings information for those individuals who  participated in the reporting period, an official with the Title I programs sends participant  Social Security numbers (SSNs) to the New Hampshire Employment Security agency to  match with the state’s Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records. According to program  officials, a data sharing agreement and standardized exchange process facilitate the  sharing. The official also sends participant SSNs to the federal Wage Record Interchange  System to obtain information about those who may be working outside New Hampshire.  The state ultimately submits the compiled outcome data to DOL, excluding participants’  personally identifiable information.
Vocational Rehabilitation Program (Education-administered): Local office staff enter  information about participants, including eligibility determinations and services received,  into the program’s case management data system. Program staff contact participants  about every six weeks to determine whether they need any additional services or have  obtained stable employment and thus can have their cases closed. Through this individual  outreach, staff also collect outcome data that the state reports to Education at an  individual participant level, including personally identifiable information. The program also  has a data sharing agreement with the New Hampshire Employment Security agency to  match participants to employment and earnings data; some of the matched data are also  used for federal performance reporting.
section_title: States We Visited Are Considering or Have Begun Integrating Program Data Systems
paragraphs: While officials in all three states we visited recognized they will need to  collaborate more closely with core partners under WIOA, the extent to  which they have already integrated their data systems, or plan to do so as  a way to further this collaboration, varied. According to DOL and  Education, WIOA encourages the development of integrated data  systems across core programs to support integrated service delivery,  case management, tracking participation across programs, and reporting  performance, among other things. Based on our analysis of literature on  information technology (IT) structures and discussions with state officials,  data system integration can take a variety of forms, ranging from  approaches that focus on sharing data between existing systems to  approaches that consolidate existing systems (see fig. 3).
Among the three states we visited, Texas is in the process of integrating  core program data systems, and at the time of our visits, Illinois and New  Hampshire were considering what approach to take related to integration.  An overall vision for data system integration is laid out in the preamble to  the proposed regulations and DOL officials said they have been engaging  with states about issues related to integration. However, DOL officials  said that they do not specify what model of data system integration states  should adopt because states’ unique circumstances, such as their data  system structures and the extent of existing integration, may make certain  approaches more viable than others. For example, among the three  states we visited, Illinois’ core programs are housed in four separate  agencies, whereas in Texas, Title I, Wagner-Peyser, and Adult Education  programs are all housed within a single agency and the Vocational  Rehabilitation program will be moving into that agency as of September  2016. These different structures and other factors, such as costs  associated with integration, affect the states’ approaches to data system  integration. DOL and OCTAE regional officials similarly observed that  states they work with are taking a variety of approaches to data system  integration, with some, such as Washington, Idaho, and Tennessee  moving forward in different ways. For example, a DOL regional official  said that Washington is exploring completely integrating its data systems  and Idaho is examining linking or interfacing data from programs’  individual systems for performance reporting. An OCTAE area  coordinator said that Tennessee has hired a contractor to develop its data  system integration. Officials from two DOL regions also said that some  states are waiting to move forward with data system integration until they  have a more complete understanding of federal expectations from final  regulations, and are instead focusing on other aspects of WIOA  implementation in the meantime.
subsections: section_title: Texas
paragraphs: Texas is in the process of consolidating core programs into a single  agency, the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), and integrating  program data systems at the performance reporting phase. The Adult  Education program moved from the Texas Education Agency into TWC in  September 2013, joining Title I and Wagner-Peyser programs. The  Vocational Rehabilitation program will be joining the agency in September  2016. While this consolidation has occurred independent of WIOA, Texas  officials said that it has put the state ahead of the curve in terms of data  system integration. Texas is integrating its core program data systems  similar to the “back-end integration” model shown in figure 3. As shown in  figure 4, according to Texas officials, the case management data systems  used for the Title I and Wagner-Peyser programs send participant data to  a repository where UI wage data from Texas and other states—via  federal exchanges, such as WRIS—are also sent. The data in this  repository are merged by participants’ SSNs and uploaded to a federal  performance reporting system. This automated delivery and compiling of  data from multiple programs and sources in the repository is the key  feature that represents “back-end integration” in Texas. The Adult  Education program has its own case management data system and  conducts performance reporting independently. However, Texas officials  said that the automated delivery both of Adult Education data into the  common repository, and of performance reports from the repository to  Education, are under development. Texas officials said they also plan to  integrate VR’s data system and reporting into this common repository  after the program transitions into TWC.
Core programs in Illinois have not begun integrating data systems and  state officials are currently considering what approach to take related to  integration. Currently, core programs in Illinois each have their own  independent data systems and state officials from all of the programs told  us they were not yet clear what integration would mean for their data  systems. At the time of our visit, officials from some of the programs said  that the Illinois governor’s office was involved in providing direction to the  core programs about what data system integration will look like in Illinois.  In the meantime, some officials said they were considering ways to  increase data sharing between core programs. Depending on the ultimate  direction Illinois takes, integration may mean substantial changes for core  programs or more minor adjustments to how programs share data.
section_title: New Hampshire
paragraphs: Officials from core programs in New Hampshire said they do not plan to  develop major changes to integrate data systems because their existing,  independent systems are functioning well and such changes would be too  costly. Some officials discussed interfacing—automated data sharing  between program data systems—as a possibility the state could explore,  though they said that approach would also have associated costs.
section_title: Though the Full Extent of Changes to Data Collection and Reporting is Not Yet Known, Expected Changes Vary by Core Program
paragraphs: State and DOL regional officials we spoke with said states do not yet  know the full extent of changes to performance data collection and  reporting that will be needed under WIOA because regulations and  reporting templates have not been finalized. However, based on  information in the law and the proposed regulations (jointly issued by DOL  and Education in April 2015), as well as conversations between states,  programs, and the federal agencies, program officials recognize that  some changes will be needed to collect data on and calculate the new  WIOA performance indicators. In addition, DOL and Education jointly  released a proposed reporting template in July 2015 that provided  information about proposed definitions for core indicators of performance,  some of the specific data elements that need to be collected, and how to  report performance on certain core indicators. DOL also released  additional proposed details about data element definitions and  specifications in September 2015. Programs in all three states we  visited are engaged in conversations within and across core programs.  For example, when we visited the states, Illinois officials were  communicating about integration and were working with a contractor to  facilitate discussions across core programs, and New Hampshire officials  were beginning to coordinate the development of the state plan for  implementation by convening stakeholder discussions.
The DOL-administered programs have experience with collecting and  reporting data for employment and earnings indicators, and Title I and  Wagner-Peyser officials in all three states we visited said they expected  few or relatively minor changes to their performance reporting. The  employment and earnings indicators under WIOA are similar to those  reported under WIA for the DOL-administered programs, though median  earnings (instead of mean earnings) are now calculated in the 2nd  quarter after program exit, and employment is measured in the 2nd and  4th quarters after program exit (instead of measuring employment in the  1st quarter and then employment retention in the 2nd and 3rd quarters  after exit). However, the measurable skill gains indicator is new to Title I  Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and these programs will have to  develop ways of obtaining these data.
Because some WIOA reporting requirements are new to the Education- administered programs, Adult Education and VR programs may face  more substantial changes to collecting and reporting performance data  than the DOL-administered programs. For example, the median earnings  performance indicator is new for the Adult Education program. In addition,  the VR program has generally reported employment and earnings  outcomes at a single point in time for program participants—at the point a  participant exits the program (i.e., once a participant has stable  employment for 90 days)—and not thereafter (as the new indicators will  require). To report on the new measures, these programs may have to  develop new ways to collect information about employment and earnings  and may need increased access to UI data. According to DOL, WIOA is  intended to expand the use of state UI wage records, consistent with  state law, for reporting employment and earnings outcomes. Of the  programs in the states we visited, only the Adult Education program in  New Hampshire does not currently have access to earnings information  from state UI data, due to a state law prohibiting it from collecting SSNs,  according to program officials. As a result, the Adult Education program in  New Hampshire plans to obtain earnings information for federal reporting  by adding a question about earnings to its participant survey. The Adult  Education programs in Illinois and Texas currently use UI data matching  to report on employment outcomes, and thus already have access to a  source of earnings data.
State VR officials in the states we visited said they will have to track  participants longer under WIOA due to the requirement to report on  outcomes after program exit, and may need new ways of collecting  information after a participant leaves the program. Contractors who  administer VR data systems in New Hampshire and other states said that  under WIOA, VR agencies will have to change how they think about  storing data and long-term maintenance because the new common  performance indicators will require a reporting method that relies on case  management over a significant period of time. As a result, states will have  to shift from reporting on the status of a participant when he or she leaves  the program to reporting the participant’s progress in the second and  fourth quarters after exiting the program. For example, VR officials in  Illinois and Texas said that while they currently have access to UI wage  data, they generally do not use them for federal performance reporting  because program staff maintain contact with participants to collect  employment status updates and other information until participants exit  the program. However, they said they plan to begin using UI wage data  matching under WIOA to report on employment and median earnings. VR  officials in New Hampshire said the program already uses UI wage data  matching to collect some of its reported employment outcome data,  though it does not currently have access to UI wage records for  participants who find employment outside New Hampshire.
The effectiveness in serving employers performance indicator will be new  to all of the core programs, and how it will be measured has yet to be  finalized. The statutory deadline for developing the indicator is July 2016.  DOL and Education proposed several potential approaches to measuring  this indicator in the proposed regulations. According to DOL, the agencies  are analyzing comments received on these proposals. Some state and  DOL regional officials said WIOA’s requirement to report on effectiveness  in serving employers, and the emphasis on serving the business needs of  employers, has generally increased awareness of employers as  customers, in addition to program participants. For example, some state  officials we spoke with said they expect they will need to develop ways to  coordinate outreach to and interaction with employers across programs.  New Hampshire Wagner-Peyser officials said they work with an  interagency business team that has representatives from each of the core  program agencies in order to eliminate duplication of effort and prevent  employers from being burdened with repetitive visits. Illinois Title I officials  similarly said programs will have to coordinate outreach to employers and  added that under WIOA, programs will have to increase employer  engagement to ensure that education and training is focused on employer  demand (i.e., where jobs are available).
After DOL and Education issue final regulations and the full extent of  changes is known, programs will still have to incorporate the performance  reporting changes into their data systems. As shown in case study 2 (see  textbox), those programs that have vendor-purchased systems may  collaborate with or rely on their contractors to incorporate changes, while  those programs that have systems developed in-house will be  responsible for incorporating changes. Regardless of whether program  officials or a vendor are responsible, the ability of programs to process  changes before WIOA implementation deadlines may vary. For example,  New Hampshire VR officials said their data system vendor expects to  continue implementing changes through summer 2016. Texas VR officials  said that the last time they implemented major changes to performance  reporting, implementing the changes took about two years to complete  from when the changes were first discussed.
Case Study 2: Incorporating Data System Changes Using Vendors Versus In-House  Staff New Hampshire Wagner-Peyser: Wagner-Peyser officials in New Hampshire expect  their data system vendor to incorporate any needed changes resulting from WIOA in their  case management system. According to officials, their vendor works with 30 state  programs and will be implementing changes in an updated version of its case  management data system product to reflect WIOA changes.
Texas Vocational Rehabilitation: According to officials, the Vocational Rehabilitation  (VR) program in Texas is individually responsible for implementing data system changes.  Information technology officials for the VR program said that to incorporate changes under  WIOA they will receive a request from VR program officials, then develop, test, and  incorporate changes into the program’s data system. The Texas officials said they had not  yet received a change request from the VR program because officials are waiting for final  WIOA requirements.
Federal officials are also considering ways to facilitate states’ WIOA  implementation efforts. The preamble to the proposed regulations issued  by DOL and Education in April 2015 states that the agencies intend to  engage in a renegotiation of data sharing agreements with states  (currently WRIS and WRIS2) to allow interstate wage matches for WIOA  programs. DOL indicated it is considering the structure of the  agreements moving forward, and will be working with Education and  engaging the states in that development. In addition, the President’s fiscal  year 2017 congressional budget justification for the Department of Health  and Human Services (HHS) requests that select federal statistical and  evaluation units be granted access to data from the National Directory of  New Hires (NDNH) for, among other things, performance measurement  purposes. The President’s Budget also proposes to provide state  agencies with responsibilities for WIOA implementation the authority to  match data with the NDNH for program administration purposes, including  oversight and evaluation of these programs. Among other things, NDNH  contains quarterly wage information on individual employees from state  UI records and federal agencies. When we spoke with DOL and HHS  officials about expanding access to NDNH, they told us that NDNH data  could potentially be used for state WIOA performance reporting, though  that would require that states be given legal access to NDNH data.  However, when we spoke with HHS officials, they cautioned that the  request is still in the early stages of consideration. Many additional details  would have to be settled either in statute or in agreements between HHS  and DOL, including how HHS would be reimbursed for use of the data  and how the security of the data would be protected. For instance,  according to the fiscal year 2017 proposal, HHS “would conduct robust  privacy and security reviews before granting any state agency access to  data.” When we spoke with them, HHS officials said they had not  engaged in detailed discussions with DOL officials about these and other  related issues.
section_title: Limited Information About Reporting Requirements and the Difficulty of Integrating Data Systems Challenge Implementation in Selected States
subsections: section_title: Limited Information on Details of Reporting Requirements Slowed Implementation Planning
paragraphs: Program officials across all three states we visited reported challenges in  the early stages of implementing the requirements of WIOA, in part  because they are awaiting final regulations and seeking more guidance  from DOL and Education. Many details about the reporting requirements  will not be known until final regulations are issued. Under WIOA, they  were due in January 2016, though DOL officials informed us they  anticipate issuing them in June 2016. Generally, early implementation  efforts in the states we visited are based on the proposed regulations,  and some state officials are concerned that without knowing what the final  regulations will entail, they may not have enough time to implement all  changes before the July 2016 deadline to begin using the new common  indicators of performance. To avoid investing resources in implementing  aspects of performance reporting that might later change with the  publication of final regulations, some states are focusing on other WIOA  efforts, such as working with new program partners and discussing ways  to share participant data efficiently, according to officials we spoke with in  two states and one DOL regional office.
DOL and Education have provided some interim guidance in order to  assist states as they await final regulations. As we noted previously, DOL  and Education issued joint proposed regulations in April 2015, as well as  proposed performance reporting templates in the following months. In  August 2015, DOL and Education also issued joint guidance on the vision  for WIOA’s coordinated service delivery system and technical assistance  resources available to states. DOL’s ETA has issued other Training and  Employment Guidance Letters (TEGLs) that cover various issues, such  as planning information related to Title I Youth program funds and WIOA  implementation activities. OCTAE has also issued other guidance  related to the Adult Education program, such as a program memorandum  about the vision for the program within the workforce system, and  guidance on the competition and award of program funds. In addition,  DOL and Education officials told us they have worked together to provide  webinars and have participated in joint conference calls with states. Some  officials in the states we visited said that they have found this various  guidance informative, particularly DOL’s TEGLs. However, receiving such  guidance earlier would have been helpful, according to some program  officials in two of the three states we visited.
DOL has also responded to states’ questions informally, according to  state officials, while Education officials have said that until regulations are  finalized they can provide only limited information outside the formal  regulatory comment process. Officials for DOL-administered programs in  all three states we visited said they contact DOL regional officials for  assistance, and several officials in New Hampshire reported that their  DOL regional office has specifically helped them figure out answers to  questions about WIOA. For example, New Hampshire’s Wagner-Peyser  officials stated that although their DOL regional officials understandably  lack information on final regulations, they have been helpful in providing  suggestions on how to plan for WIOA and encouraging officials not to wait  until final regulations to move forward with implementation. Similarly, a  DOL regional official said he meets with states every two weeks to  discuss issues on the ground, such as training and WIOA definitions  related to performance reporting. In contrast, Education officials from  RSA and OCTAE have told states that they cannot answer questions that  relate to ongoing rulemaking. For example, according to Education  officials, they have responded to questions about performance indicators  by referring states to the relevant provisions in WIOA and the proposed  regulations.
section_title: States GAO Visited Reported that Resource Constraints and Data Security Issues Present Challenges for Integrating and Sharing Data
paragraphs: While WIOA encourages the integration of data systems, state capacity to  pursue integration varies. In the states we visited, Texas is currently  integrating its data systems, but officials in New Hampshire and Illinois  said that the cost of data system integration will be a major challenge. For  example, officials in every core program in New Hampshire reported that  developing a new, integrated data system is cost-prohibitive. Similarly, a  DOL regional official said that the majority of states in his region face  challenges with data integration that include the expense of developing  an integrated system and determining which systems will need to be  redesigned. While states have some flexibility in how they can use their  WIOA funding, DOL and Education officials told us that there are federal  and state restrictions on the amount available for data integration and IT  system upgrades.
To help fund data system integration, DOL and Education have requested  funding to provide assistance to states. In the President’s fiscal year 2016  congressional budget justification for ETA, the agency asked for $37  million under the Workforce Data Quality Initiative, of which $30 million  would be to “help states build integrated or bridged data systems to  facilitate WIOA implementation…  support building state-based wage  data matching infrastructure to enable and/or streamline WIOA  performance reporting.” Similarly, as part of its fiscal year 2016 budget  request for the Adult Education program, Education asked for $1 million  to provide technical assistance to states in the collection of new data  elements and integration of data systems. Officials at both agencies told  us that the funding requests were not intended to cover all data  integration costs, but instead to provide some assistance to states. The  Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, provided $6 million for the  Workforce Data Quality Initiative and did not provide the full amount of  funding Education requested to provide technical assistance to states.  In the President’s Budget for fiscal year 2017, both agencies again  requested funding to support states’ data integration efforts. Under the  Workforce Data Quality Initiative, ETA asked for $40 million, of which $33  million would be to help states build integrated data systems to facilitate  WIOA implementation. Under the Adult Education program, Education  asked for $6 million to support the collection of new data elements and  the integration of data systems.
Aside from cost, state and federal officials also identified other capacity  concerns in this area, including limited staff expertise and antiquated IT  systems. According to DOL officials, state efforts to integrate data  systems may be challenged by, among other things, constraints in their  ability to retain qualified IT staff due to state salaries that are low  compared to those in the private sector. One DOL regional official said  that due to budget cuts and layoffs in one of her states, the remaining  staff lacks knowledgeable data programmers. Some program officials in  New Hampshire expressed similar concerns about limited expertise to  develop data system integration. For example, a New Hampshire  Vocational Rehabilitation official reported that the state’s IT department  has reduced its labor force and has limited staff capacity to support data  system integration. According to DOL officials, many states have  significantly antiquated and inflexible IT systems, making it challenging to  support data system integration. Officials in two DOL regional offices  similarly reported that rather than upgrading data systems, states have  added patches over the years to respond to changes to reporting  requirements, resulting in antiquated systems that make integration  difficult.
As part of data system integration, WIOA encourages states to share and  match data across programs, but officials reported that efforts to do so  may be challenged by security concerns and undeveloped relationships.  Officials in two of the three states we visited and a DOL regional official  said that concerns over data security may impede states’ efforts to obtain  participant information from core program partners. For example, a New  Hampshire official said she would have concerns about sharing data with  other agencies because she does not manage or oversee the data  security standards they follow. These security concerns may be the  result, in part, of undeveloped relationships between partners. According  to a study by the Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness (CREC),  one of the challenges to data sharing is a lack of trust between partners,  particularly related to the intent and ability of the entity requesting data to  use the data appropriately and protect it from any breach of  confidentiality. The study identifies establishing mechanisms to build trust  between entities interested in obtaining data from each other as one  successful strategy for responding to this challenge and improving data  sharing conditions.
section_title: Limitations on Available Data May Challenge the Quality of Performance Information
paragraphs: DOL and Education intend that WIOA’s common indicators of  performance will, among other things, enable consistent outcome  comparisons across states. WIOA requires the use of quarterly wage  records, consistent with state laws, and the preamble to the proposed  regulations emphasizes data-matching by participant SSN as a way of  encouraging timely and accurate data for employment and earnings  measures across the different programs and states. However, under  federal law, state and local government agencies generally cannot require  individuals to provide their SSNs as a condition of receiving program  services. In addition, not all programs collect SSNs from some, or all,  participants, thus making it difficult to match participant data. For  example, according to OCTAE officials, Adult Education programs in  some states have reported to them that they have difficulty collecting  SSNs due to state privacy laws. OCTAE officials said that in the absence  of SSNs, states can use other methods to collect data for performance  reporting purposes, such as participant surveys. As shown in case study  3 (see textbox), other strategies for mitigating data gaps include the  development of alternative methods of data matching, instead of using  SSNs.
Case Study 3: Matching Participant Data Without SSNs  In November 2014, we reported on challenges certain states experienced matching  education and workforce program data as part of their efforts to develop statewide  longitudinal data systems, which, among other things, allow states to follow individuals  through their education and into the workforce. Officials in three of the five states visited  as part of that review said state law or agency policy prohibit collecting a SSN in certain  education programs. As a result, to match education and workforce data without a SSN,  state officials reported they are developing algorithms to match individual records using  other identifiers, such as an individual’s first name, last name, and date of birth.  Wagner-Peyser officials in New Hampshire told us that they are able to match participants’  information based on other personally identifiable information (PII), such as name and  date of birth, with UI data if a participant does not provide a SSN. Similarly, according to  officials in Texas, the Adult Education program is able to match three of four elements  (first name, last name, date of birth, or SSN) to obtain select education outcomes from the  Texas Education Agency. However, Texas officials reported to us that relying on names  for data matching may not be ideal, as names may change throughout an individual’s  lifetime. DOL officials told us that states are making advances in obtaining participant  information through secure portals for matching in which users are not able to see  participants’ PII. In addition, DOL officials said they are aware of work groups that are  developing ways to use advanced technology to do data matching without SSNs.
Even when programs have participant SSNs, they may face other  constraints in their ability to match with UI data. According to the CREC  study, the decision to share or withhold employment and wage data is  largely based on how a state interprets UI data confidentiality statutes  and regulations. The study found that the states that have been most  successful in promoting data sharing are those with legislation that  provides greater detail about both to whom and for what purposes  confidential data may be disclosed.
Data gaps may continue to affect the quality of performance data reported  in the Adult Education program. For example, state programs that do not  collect SSNs, such as New Hampshire, may continue to utilize surveys or  individual participant follow-up as a means to collect information on  earnings. However, an Adult Education official in New Hampshire said  that adding questions to participant outcome surveys to collect  information for the WIOA median earnings performance indicator may  discourage respondents from filling out the surveys and drop the  response rate below OCTAE’s minimum acceptable level. Even when a  state Adult Education program uses UI wage data matching, some  participants do not provide SSNs—sometimes in large numbers. For  example, Adult Education officials in Texas said their rate of matching  participants to wage data using SSNs was about 55 percent. According to  the statistical formulas OCTAE uses to calculate weighted performance  outcomes for state Adult Education programs, participants whose  employment outcome information is missing (i.e., whose data cannot be  matched with UI wage records or who do not respond to surveys) are  assumed to obtain employment at the same rates as those participants  with data available. OCTAE officials said they have not assessed whether  differences exist between populations that respond to surveys or who  submit SSNs and those who do not respond or do not submit SSNs.  Officials reported that such an analysis of nonresponse bias would not be  technically feasible within each state before submitting performance data,  and similarly would not be feasible for OCTAE staff since state data are  reported in the aggregate.
DOL regional officials also raised concerns about the accuracy of  performance data reported by states. DOL regional officials annually  review a sample of case files from selected states to assess the validity of  data states submit for performance reporting, and provide feedback to  states based on their findings. According to DOL regional officials, these  regularly recurring data validation reviews are conducted by the regional  officials after states have submitted their performance data. Regional  officials review the data element validation results, including the error  rates and provide technical assistance to states as appropriate, according  to DOL officials. Officials in two of the three DOL regional offices we  spoke with said they have recently identified higher-than-desired error  rates in performance data reported to the federal government in their  routine reviews. For example, one regional official found that a state failed  to update its data system and as a result, reported inaccurate information  about the level of education completed by program participants. DOL  officials told us that due to resource limitations, they have not performed  any analysis to determine how such error rates may or may not affect the  overall accuracy of outcome data. According to DOL officials, although  the data validation reviews conducted by regional officials are not tied to  sanctions, states are expected to use the findings of the reviews to  improve the quality of data they submit for performance reporting in the  future. OCTAE also conducts risk-based monitoring of state Adult  Education programs, which covers data quality issues. One recent  monitoring report found that a state program’s data system did not include  required automated checks for errors and invalid data.
section_title: State Officials Identified Reporting Changes that May Be Especially Challenging, Such As Collecting and Measuring Outcome Data for Certain Populations
paragraphs: New WIOA reporting requirements will increase the responsibilities for  Eligible Training Providers (ETPs) to track employment outcomes for  training participants, including participants who are not enrolled in WIOA  programs. State officials in all three states we visited said that these  additional performance reporting requirements may discourage some  ETPs from participating as WIOA training providers because the ETPs  believe reporting on non-DOL-funded participants will be burdensome.  Texas officials said that they have been working with ETPs in their state  to find ways to reduce the burden while still complying with WIOA. In prior  work, we identified similar concerns during the transition to WIA.  However, according to DOL, to balance these concerns while still  gathering enough information for participants and others to make  informed choices about which training providers to use, states were  ultimately able to obtain a waiver from certain reporting requirements for  ETPs under WIA. Forty-one states obtained the waiver, according to  DOL. DOL officials told us that they are aware of the challenges that  states have expressed related to understanding where the burden lies for  ETP performance reporting in both data collection and reporting. For  example, DOL officials told us that not all ETPs have access to UI wage  data. DOL officials said they solicited feedback on the proposed  regulations and performance reporting templates in order to work through  these issues, and that these details will be addressed in the final  regulations and reporting templates, as well as in future joint guidance  from DOL and Education on data access.
State Vocational Rehabilitation officials in two of the three states we  visited noted that identifying and tracking participants receiving pre- employment transition services, as well as reporting on new WIOA  performance indicators for these participants, may be difficult. WIOA  emphasizes pre-employment transition services, which assist students  with disabilities transitioning from secondary school into postsecondary  education or employment. WIOA states that these services are to be  provided to students with disabilities who are eligible or “potentially  eligible” for services, but New Hampshire and Texas officials said they did  not know how to identify, serve, and track “potentially eligible”  participants. According to Education, each VR program grantee received  terms attached to their fiscal year 2016 grant award describing the  requirements for the provision of pre-employment transition services to all  students with disabilities who are eligible or potentially eligible for VR  services. In addition, the agency noted that RSA plans to provide more  extensive guidance related to this issue in the future.
section_title: In Helping to Address Challenges States Are Facing, Federal Agencies are Balancing Benefits of Providing Timely Guidance and Considering Stakeholder Input
paragraphs: DOL and Education officials are largely aware of and, in some cases,  actively working to help address the challenges the states we visited  raised related to their ability to timely implement WIOA’s vision for  performance reporting. In this process, the federal agencies are balancing  the benefits of issuing guidance as early as possible with the importance  of considering a broad array of stakeholder input via the ongoing  rulemaking process. In some cases, the departments have tried to  assuage states’ concerns through the guidance and ongoing dialogue  discussed earlier. However, DOL and Education officials also  acknowledge they likely cannot more fully mitigate states’ concerns until  they issue final WIOA regulations and subsequently begin to develop  more detailed implementation guidance. Among other things, the  departments noted that in several areas, the proposed regulations sought  suggestions and other input on key aspects of WIOA rather than spelling  out explicit proposed rules (e.g., different ways to define program exit or  ideas on how to measure the effectiveness in serving employers  indicator), an approach that likely contributes to some states’ hesitancy to  plan specific implementation steps or commit resources to them.  According to DOL officials, the departments expect to issue final  regulations in June 2016, which is after the date called for in WIOA. They  attribute this delay to the scope and complexity of the new law, the  volume of comments received on the proposed regulations, and the  importance they are placing on a thoughtful and deliberative treatment of  the many stakeholders’ perspectives and input.
section_title: Three States GAO Visited Reported No Intrusions into their Data Systems and that they Take Steps to Limit and Safeguard Personal Information Collected
subsections: section_title: Three States GAO Visited Reported No Intrusions into their Data Systems, Though Some Officials Cited Other Limited Security Breaches
paragraphs: Officials in all three states we visited reported that they were not aware of  any outside intrusions into the electronic data systems for core WIOA  programs during the years they worked in the programs. However,  officials in Illinois and Texas reported other types of occasional data or  security breaches that resulted in inappropriate exposure of PII for small  numbers of people in limited circumstances. For example, Texas officials  described a few instances of paper records with PII stolen from vehicles,  a few times when unencrypted data were transferred electronically from  local offices to the state, and an instance in which an employee included  PII in internal emails. Officials said an electronic flag in the Texas email  system currently identifies SSN-like numbers that appear in emails from  program employees before they are sent so employees can remove any  SSNs. An Illinois official reported that a staff member once placed paper  PII in a non-secure trash container. Officials in another Illinois program  said they found that some of the entities with which they shared data did  not have certain security practices in place; the entities reported this  information in response to a questionnaire regarding data security  practices administered by the program as part of the data sharing  application process. For example, some of the entities were faxing  paperwork with PII. Officials said they have used the answers to this  questionnaire to help tighten data security with certain sharing partners,  including mandating the use of Secure File Transfer Protocol for data  sharing.
Officials in all three states said they had protocols for reporting a breach  of PII, often reporting the incident to a security officer or a program  supervisor. For example, in the Illinois Vocational Rehabilitation program,  officials told us that staff are to report data breaches to the program  director and to the agency’s Chief Information Officer or to the secretary  of the agency, and that such breaches must be reported to the governor  and the state legislature within 24 hours. Illinois Adult Education officials  also said they have procedures to investigate incidents and inform  affected program participants. According to officials in New Hampshire’s  Wagner-Peyser program, the program is required by the state to have a  continuity of operations plan in place, which includes responding to data  breaches. The response plan is coordinated by an official in the agency  commissioner’s office who is responsible for overseeing data security.
section_title: Program Officials in the Three States Reported They Generally Limit the Collection and Use of Personally Identifiable Information
paragraphs: One of the ways that some programs reduce risks associated with the  unauthorized disclosure of PII is to limit what is collected from  participants, including involving participants in consenting to the collection  of information, which is consistent with the Fair Information Practice  Principles. According to the Privacy Act of 1974, government agencies  generally cannot deny services to participants because of a refusal to  provide SSNs. In 11 of the 12 programs across the three states, officials  told us they allow applicants to opt out of providing their SSNs and still  receive services if found otherwise eligible. One New Hampshire  program only uses the last 4 digits of a participant’s SSN in its data  systems and prohibits the transmission of the entire SSN. In addition,  officials in at least one program in each of the three states also specified  that they allow applicants to opt out of providing other types of PII, such  as date of birth. While, as previously mentioned, many Adult Education  program participants in the states we visited do not provide SSNs, Title I  and Wagner-Peyser officials in New Hampshire and Texas told us that  relatively few participants in their programs opt out of supplying their  SSNs or other PII.
One New Hampshire program reduces the possibility of unauthorized PII  disclosures by asking for personal identification to establish identity, but  not storing the PII in any files. This practice is consistent with the Fair  Information Practice Principle of minimizing data collection to only directly  relevant information. Officials in the New Hampshire program said that  staff ask applicants to provide identity documents (e.g., driver’s license,  military separation paperwork, or Social Security card), and then staff  conduct a visual verification of the documents without scanning them into  their electronic data system or making copies for a paper record file. An  official from one DOL region suggested that states could consider more  frequently using visual verification of documents with PII without making  copies. As a result, state programs would not store that PII.
Officials in all three states we visited also explained that they inform  applicants for services about how the programs will use their PII, typically  by asking applicants to read and sign a form indicating why their PII is  being collected and how it will be used. This is consistent with the Fair  Information Practice Principles. The forms explain the types of allowable  uses of PII, among other things. For example, an information disclosure  form for the VR program in New Hampshire informs participants that  personal information is confidential and will not be released without their  written permission, except when information must be released as required  by federal authorities or in other circumstances specified on the form. The  disclosure form states that information can be shared, with consent, with  other related state programs with which the participant is involved and  with entities involved in audit, evaluation, or research directly connected  with administration of the program.
section_title: Officials in the Three States Reported Using Various Practices to Safeguard Information Collected
paragraphs: In prior work, we identified actions in the areas of security management  and access controls, among others, as important for keeping data  secure; these are also consistent with the Fair Information Practice  Principle of protecting data through safeguards against risks. Officials in  the three states we visited reported using various practices in these  areas. For example, in terms of security management, state officials  reported various activities related to the design and operation of their data  systems, including:  state data security protocols (together with federal guidance) that  establish practices for handling both electronic and paper PII; data security training that staff must attend periodically, as well as  staff being required to sign a confidentiality (also called nondisclosure)  agreement; and data sharing agreements with another state agency that must have  proper PII protection procedures included, with programs owning the  PII reviewing current or proposed data sharing agreements, and  entities requesting data sharing required to provide evidence of  acceptable data security procedures.
Related to physical and data system access controls, state officials said  that among other practices, they: use secured entry for buildings containing PII; keep data on a secure network and access to the network has levels  of set privileges based on a staff member’s role; with staff computers  password protected and locked after a certain time period of inactivity;  and  require staff to use encryption software to safeguard data whenever  sending sensitive information via email or when transferring data.
In addition, the core programs in Texas have a periodic “penetration test”  to try to identify possible vulnerabilities that outsiders could use to access  the data. The central state entity for information resources conducts these  tests individually for each state agency; staff from that entity attempt to  hack into the data system as if they were outsiders. The Texas core  programs also perform self-assessments of data security. New  Hampshire’s central entity for information resources also conducts scans  on data servers for vulnerabilities.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided copies of this draft report to the Department of Education  and the Department of Labor for review and comment. Both departments  provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as  appropriate. The Department of Labor provided a transmittal letter with its  comments, which is reproduced in appendix I. The letter highlights DOL’s  work with Education to create a unified vision of WIOA performance  accountability through guidance, technical assistance, and rulemaking.  The letter also cites DOL’s goal in the coming year of providing guidance  on data validation, as well as other performance accountability topics  such as wage record sharing and negotiations of performance targets.  We also provided copies of this draft report to officials from the state  programs we visited for their review, and incorporated their technical  comments as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, and other  interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the  GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report  are listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Comments from the U.S. Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Bill MacBlane (Assistant  Director), Michael Kniss (Analyst-in-Charge), Kelsey Kreider, Ada  Nwadugbo, and Paul Wright, along with James Bennett, Marisol Cruz,  John de Ferrari, Alex Galuten, Danielle Giese, Farrah Graham, Amy  Moran Lowe, Sheila McCoy, Walter Vance, and Charlie Willson made  significant contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act: Performance Reporting and  Related Challenges. GAO-15-764R. Washington, D.C.: September 23,  2015.
Education and Workforce Data: Challenges in Matching Student and  Worker Information Raise Concerns about Longitudinal Data Systems.  GAO-15-27. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2014.
Workforce Investment Act: Strategies Needed to Improve Certain Training  Outcome Data. GAO-14-137. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2014.
Information Security: Agency Responses to Breaches of Personally  Identifiable Information Need to Be More Consistent. GAO-14-34.  Washington, D.C.: December 9, 2013.
Workforce Investment Act: DOL Should Do More to Improve the Quality  of Participant Data. GAO-14-4. Washington, D.C.: December 2, 2013.
Unemployment Insurance Information Technology: States Face  Challenges in Modernization Efforts. GAO-13-859T. Washington, D.C.:  September 11, 2013.
Information Technology: Department of Labor Could Further Facilitate  Modernization of States’ Unemployment Insurance Systems.  GAO-12-957. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2012.
Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual (FISCAM).  GAO-09-232G. Washington, D.C.: February 2, 2009.
Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve the  Workforce System. GAO-07-105IT. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 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.
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: 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: Improvements Needed in Performance  Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness.  GAO-02-275. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns  Over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: October 4,  2001.