Workforce Training: DOL Can Better Share Information on Services for On-Demand, or Gig, Workers
Published: 2017-09-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 2015, GAO reported that millions of workers do not have standard work arrangements. Some barriers to self-employed gig work have been reduced by online platforms, and while the public workforce system is accessible to all job seekers, it is unclear how the system is helping gig workers obtain the necessary skills and training to be successful. GAO was asked to review the skill and training supports needed by gig workers.
GAO examined (1) what is known about the characteristics of gig workers and the work they perform, including its benefits and downsides, (2) the non-occupational skills and training that stakeholders indicate are needed by gig workers and how they are provided, and (3) the challenges that selected federal agencies and workforce development boards cite in providing supports for gig workers. GAO conducted a literature review and interviewed officials at federal agencies and a nongeneralizable sample of 8 state and 11 local workforce boards—locations selected based on the likelihood of a large number of gig workers, among other factors—and gig company officials, gig workers, researchers, and other stakeholders. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Studies GAO reviewed suggest that workers who engage in on-demand, or “gig” work, differ in their characteristics and types of work performed, but each of these defined these workers differently. There is no universally accepted or official definition of gig workers; but, for its report, GAO has identified their characteristics as follows: self-employed individuals providing labor services and completing single projects or tasks on demand for pay. Gig work can be obtained or performed either offline or online. According to the three quantitative studies GAO reviewed, up to about 40 percent of workers earning money through online gig work (i.e., applications or websites that connect workers with customers) were 34 years old or younger. They worked in a variety of occupations ranging from providing legal services to moving furniture. According to stakeholders GAO interviewed, benefits of gig work included flexibility in scheduling and autonomy, while downsides included a lack of financial security and benefits, such as health and unemployment insurance.
According to stakeholders, gig workers need soft skills and business skills, many of which can be provided by the Department of Labor's (DOL) existing programs. Soft skills include customer service, time management, and self-motivation, and business skills include marketing and financial literacy and management. In addition, gig workers need an understanding of legal matters (e.g., contracts) associated with gig work. The nation's public workforce system, including workforce boards, which DOL oversees, and other partners can provide some of these self-employment skills based on local area needs. Officials at the local workforce boards GAO interviewed said they served gig workers either directly, for example, through recruitment events and by providing career services, or indirectly, such as through general self-employment services. For instance, the Chicago board recruited drivers for a ridesharing company and the San Francisco board helped gig workers in the media and visual arts develop their portfolios and build their networks.
Officials from selected state and local workforce boards cited two broad challenges in providing supports for gig workers: a lack of information on promising practices related to gig workers and difficulties in reporting their employment-related outcomes. Officials from all 19 state and local boards GAO interviewed expressed interest in other boards' efforts to serve gig workers. DOL shares promising practices through its searchable online portal, but has not fully linked “gig” and related terms to relevant information on self-employment. Helping boards easily find and share promising practices relevant to gig workers would allow boards that want to help gig workers to do so more fully and efficiently. State and local board officials also explained that it is challenging to verify employment and earnings outcomes for the self-employed as they are required to do under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Because these outcomes for gig workers may be difficult to verify, a board's performance under WIOA may be negatively affected and result in penalties. Consequently, DOL officials said workforce boards had asked for guidance on collecting outcome information. In June 2017, DOL issued clarifying guidance to boards on how to collect information that can be used to report outcomes required under WIOA.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOL take steps to help workforce boards find and share information on promising practices related to serving gig workers. DOL agreed with GAO's recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In 2015, we reported that millions of workers do not have standard work  arrangements—permanent jobs with traditional employer-employee  relationships. Some of these nontraditional workers are “gig” workers.  There is no official definition of gig work. For the purposes of this report,  we identify the characteristics of gig workers as follows:
Self-employed and performing single projects or tasks on demand;
Providing labor services rather than capital goods or assets;
Working for pay (not providing services in-kind);
Obtaining their work or performing services either offline or online— through applications or websites, also known as digital or online  platforms, which connect workers with jobs; and
Performing gig work either part-time or full-time.
Gig workers are not new to the workforce. In the past, gig workers may  have been known as freelancers or independent contractors. More  recently, however, companies offering work through online platforms have  made gig work more accessible, lowering the entry and operating costs  for workers who want or need to supplement or replace more traditional  work. For example, in the past a freelancer might have needed to build a  client base through advertising or referrals, but now online platforms can  facilitate this process with workers beginning a project or task very  quickly. While gig work may bring new opportunities, it may also bring  challenges. Because gig workers are self-employed, they might not  receive employer-provided benefits, such as retirement or health  insurance, or be covered by other safeguards, such as job-protected  leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.
With this new ease of entry into gig work, it is unclear whether workers  have the appropriate skills and training to be successful. The federal  government funds a number of employment and training programs for job  seekers. In particular, the Departments of Labor (DOL) and Education  (Education) oversee the public workforce system, with state and local  workforce boards. The system’s focus has been on providing services  that help job seekers move into work that is defined by a traditional  relationship between an employer and an employee, rather than the more  temporary relationship between consumers and providers that is present  in gig work. It is unclear how the workforce development system along  with other federal programs may respond to any issues associated with  gig work.
You asked us to provide information on the non-occupational skills and  training that could help workers be successful in gig work. In this review,  we examined:  1.  What is known about the characteristics of gig workers and the work  they perform, including its benefits and downsides?  2.  What non-occupational skills and training do stakeholders indicate are  needed by gig workers, and how are they provided?  3.  What challenges, if any, do selected federal agencies and workforce  development boards cite in providing supports for gig workers?
To address our objectives we reviewed relevant federal laws and  regulations, including the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act  (WIOA), which brought changes to many of the programs in the  workforce development system, and DOL and Education regulations and  guidance on its implementation. We also searched DOL’s technical  assistance website portal, WorkforceGPS, using terms related to gig  work and reviewed federal internal control standards to assess how  information related to gig workers was being communicated to workforce  boards.
We reviewed the literature and interviewed federal agency officials,  researchers, and other stakeholders to identify key government, industry,  and academic studies examining the gig workforce. Because our focus  was on skills and training, we selected specific studies that analyzed gig  workers who were providing labor services and were self-employed.  Therefore, we did not review studies that included information about  workers providing goods or capital assets or where the information on  workers providing labor services could not be broken out separately from  those providing goods or capital assets. To assess their methodological  quality, we reviewed the evaluation methodology for each study. Through  this process, we identified and reviewed four key studies that met our  topical and methodological criteria.
We interviewed officials at DOL, Education, the Department of Commerce  (Commerce), and the Small Business Administration (SBA) to examine  programs that might serve gig workers. We also interviewed numerous  stakeholders to determine what skills and training are needed by gig  workers and the benefits and downsides of such work. Among these  stakeholders were:
Nine researchers, identified through our literature review and  recommendations from experts and internal stakeholders;
Twenty-one associations and organizations that may represent,  advocate for, or share information with gig workers, including  associations and bloggers, to obtain a range of perspectives on gig  workers; and
Officials at gig companies, including six online platform gig  companies, reflecting a range of services provided by gig workers,  such as transportation, food and goods delivery, and professional  services.
In addition, we interviewed senior officials at 11 local workforce boards to  identify efforts to serve gig workers. Local boards were selected based  on a range of criteria, including information collected during initial  interviews with DOL and local board officials and industry groups, a  private sector report with information on cities with the largest  percentages of workers with income from online platforms, and other  relevant documents, including our past work on local workforce boards.
Selected boards were located in San Francisco and Sunnyvale,  California; Denver, Colorado; Gainesville and Miami, Florida; Atlanta,  Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; New York City, New York; Dallas, Texas;  Vienna, Virginia; and Seattle, Washington. We also interviewed state  workforce boards in those same states. The results of these interviews  cannot be generalized to the larger population of all state or local  workforce boards.
We visited 5 of the 11 boards—San Francisco and Sunnyvale, California;  Gainesville, Florida; Chicago, Illinois; and Vienna, Virginia—where we  also interviewed American Job Center directors and held discussion  groups with a total of 15 gig workers, who were identified by the  workforce boards, based on criteria we provided. See appendix I for  more information on our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2016 to September  2017 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: Currently there is no universally accepted or official definition of the gig  economy or gig workers. The characteristics of gig workers that we focus  on in this report (self-employed individuals who perform single projects or  tasks on demand for pay) share some characteristics with self- employment as it is understood by other federal agencies, but our  characterization does not directly align with those agencies’ views.  Although other definitions have been used to measure the number of gig  workers, our focus was on the non-occupational skills and training  needed by workers who participate in gig work. We characterized gig  workers as being self-employed and who participate in gig work part-time  or full-time. However, not all self-employed individuals are gig workers.  For example, we did not consider self-employed individuals who own their  own storefront business, such as a restaurant owner, as gig workers  because they do not generally work on a project basis. However, our  characterization would include a caterer who works on a project basis  with multiple clients. At the same time, however, we excluded project- based workers who are not self-employed, such as those who are  employees of a staffing agency.
subsections: section_title: The Public Workforce Development System
paragraphs: As the centerpiece of the federal government’s workforce system, the  purposes of WIOA include the following: (1) provide individuals,  particularly those with barriers to employment, increased access to and  opportunities for employment, education, training, and support services to  succeed in the labor market; (2) provide America’s workers with the skills  and credentials necessary to secure and advance in employment with  family-sustaining wages; and (3) provide activities through the state and  local workforce development systems to increase the employment,  retention, earnings, and economic self-sufficiency of participants; among  other purposes. Programs administered by DOL and Education provide  services such as job search assistance, career counseling, occupational  skills training, classroom training, and on-the-job training. In addition,  WIOA provides for a workforce system that is accessible to all job  seekers to make it easier for them to access the services they need to  obtain skills and employment. Basic career services include eligibility  determinations, initial skill assessments, and program referrals. WIOA  also provides for state workforce development boards (state boards) to  help oversee a system of over 550 local workforce development boards  (local boards) that, in turn, deliver services through a network of over  2,400 American Job Centers. Under WIOA, state and local boards have  the flexibility to respond to the needs of their local labor markets, which  they do, in part, through the analysis of local labor market information.
Federal funding under WIOA for core programs is allocated to states  using statutory formulas that, in part, generally reflect state and local  unemployment data. According to DOL, in program year 2017, total  appropriated funding for activities related to Adult and Dislocated Worker  programs and Wagner-Peyser Employment Services was more than $2.7  billion. Local boards may also leverage other funding sources, such as  DOL discretionary grants and state and local government funding, among  other sources.
WIOA included new performance measures for states and local areas  generally related to participants who exit WIOA programs. These include  the percentage of participants employed in unsubsidized employment in  the second and fourth quarters after program exit, and median earnings in  unsubsidized employment in the second quarter after exit, among other  measures. Generally, performance outcome targets are negotiated  between DOL’s regional offices and state workforce boards and take into  consideration the characteristics of the job seekers being served as well  as the local labor market conditions. Both states and local areas are  subject to certain consequences for failing to achieve their negotiated  targets. To support performance outcomes, states must use, consistent  with state law, quarterly wage records to verify participants’ employment  and earnings. States typically satisfy this requirement by using their  Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage record data. Earnings from self- employment, however, are generally not included in state UI wage  records because self-employed workers are not considered to be in  employment that is covered by the unemployment insurance system. In  these cases, boards are allowed to use supplemental wage information— for example, case management notes, administrative records, and  surveys of participants, among other things—to support employment and  earnings outcomes.
DOL has long encouraged workforce boards to provide entrepreneurship  and self-employment training by funding several projects and grants to  demonstrate the role of the workforce development system in this area  (see table 1).
DOL also provides technical assistance to workforce boards through  online training, other training events, and its WorkforceGPS website.  WorkforceGPS is an interactive online platform designed to build the  capacity of the public workforce system through knowledge sharing. It  offers resources, peer-to-peer connections, and supplements other  technical assistance efforts.
section_title: SBA Programs That Provide Assistance to the Self-Employed, Including Gig Workers
paragraphs: SBA also has programs that provide support and training to self- employed workers, including the following:
Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) – SBDCs, with more than 900 service delivery points, provide training and technical assistance to current or prospective business owners.
SCORE Association – SCORE is a nationwide, nonprofit organization of working and retired business executives who donate time to counsel and provide workshops for small business owners.
Women’s Business Centers (WBCs) – WBCs are a national network that provides educational resources to help women start and grow successful small businesses.
section_title: Studies of Gig Workers Suggest They Differ on Multiple Characteristics, and Stakeholders Describe Key Benefits and Downsides to Gig Work
subsections: section_title: Studies of Gig Workers and the Types of Work They Perform Suggest They Differ on Multiple Characteristics
paragraphs: Because there is no universally accepted definition of gig work,  characteristics of individuals engaging in this work and the types of work  they perform depend on how this population is studied. Each of the three  quantitative studies we reviewed defined their population of workers, type  of work performed, and time frames of work performed differently.  Therefore, each study provides a snapshot of this emerging area, and  their results are not directly comparable (see table 2).
According to the studies we reviewed, up to about 40 percent of workers  engaging in online gig or informal work were 34 years old or younger. The  JPMorgan Chase Institute (JPMorgan Chase) study found that 43 percent  of account holders participating in online labor platforms were 18-34  years old. The Pew Research Center study found that an estimated 42  percent of gig workers were 18-29 years old, whereas 19 percent of  participants were 50 years old or older. Similarly, the Federal Reserve  Board (Federal Reserve) found that an estimated 41 percent of those  completing tasks through online platforms were under age 30.
The JPMorgan Chase and Pew Research Center studies found online gig  workers to have relatively lower incomes. Specifically, the JPMorgan  Chase study found that their bank account owners who earned income  through online labor platforms from October 2012 through September  2015 had lower median monthly incomes ($2,514) than the JPMorgan  Chase study population labor force at large ($3,351). The Pew  Research Center study had similar results with an estimated 49 percent  of online gig workers making a family income of $30,000 or less annually,  whereas only 14 percent of those made $75,000 or more. On the other  hand, the Federal Reserve estimated that almost half (about 45 percent)  of those completing online tasks through websites had an annual family  income greater than $75,000.
Some individuals who participate in gig work are also engaged in other  employment or are students. According to the Pew Research Center  study, an estimated two-thirds of online gig workers indicated that they  were employed either full- or part-time in another position, and 23 percent  were enrolled as either full- or part-time students. The Federal Reserve  study estimated that approximately half of those performing online tasks  through websites reported that they were also paid employees, with about  an additional 10 percent reporting that they were self-employed.
subsections: section_title: Types of Work
paragraphs: According to the studies we reviewed, gig work is performed in a range of  occupations, and at various skill levels. The Pew Research Center study  reported that the types of work found through online platforms varied  between physical tasks, simple online tasks, or relatively complex tasks.  For example, according to the Pew Research Center, the estimated 8  percent of Americans who earned money in the last year through online  job platforms performed at least one of the following tasks: online tasks through digital job platforms, such as data entry or taking  surveys (an estimated 5 percent);  ride-hailing services (an estimated 2 percent); and shopping for or  delivering household items, or by cleaning or doing laundry for a client  (an estimated 1 percent each); and other types of work taken on through online platforms (an estimated 2  percent). This work ranged from relatively basic tasks, such as  moving furniture or working as a parking lot attendant, to more highly- specialized work, such as providing legal services, manuscript editing,  or IT consulting.
According to three researchers we interviewed, recent attention has been  paid to online gig work, but a larger number of individuals are participating  in offline gig work. The Federal Reserve examined characteristics of  survey respondents who engaged in various types of online and offline  gig work. Online gig work included completing tasks that were identified  or mediated through online platforms. Offline gig work included house  cleaning, house painting, yard or landscaping work; babysitting and/or  child care services; and personal services such as picking up dry  cleaning, providing moving assistance, and dog walking; among other  services.
section_title: Worker Motivations
paragraphs: Workers’ motivations for engaging in gig work included filling gaps in  income and accommodation of work schedule preferences, according to  the two studies for which we obtained survey results. The JPMorgan  Chase study reviewed the bank deposits of individuals in the months that  they were actively participating in online platform work. This analysis  found that earnings from online labor platforms tended to offset dips in  other sources of income; therefore, the researchers suggested that  individuals used earnings from the online labor platforms to substitute for  reductions in other sources of earnings and in periods where workers  were between jobs. Although JPMorgan Chase found that online gig work  sometimes substitutes for other income sources, it also noted that these  deposits contributed a sizeable portion of their income—on average, 33  percent of total monthly income in months they were active on the  platform—but were secondary to other income sources deposited to their  accounts. The study noted that although the number of people  participating in online gig work has increased, workers’ reliance on  income from this work has remained stable over time both in terms of the  fraction of months when workers participated and total income earned.
The Pew Research Center study found that providing workers with  something to do in their spare time and filling in gaps in income were top  motivations for online gig workers. About 42 percent of gig workers said  they use online platforms for fun or something to do in their spare time,  whereas about 37 percent said this work helps fill in gaps or fluctuations  in income.
The Pew Research Center study also estimated that income earned from  online platforms was essential or important to approximately half of  workers, and these workers tended to have lower levels of household  income and education. Of the estimated 8 percent of survey  respondents who said that they earned money in the last year from online  platforms, approximately 56 percent reported the income was essential or  important to their overall financial situation. Of those, an estimated 45  percent said that they use online platforms because they need to be able  to control their schedule due to school, child care, or other obligations.  About a quarter also said they use online platforms because it is fun or for  something to do (about 28 percent), because there is a lack of other jobs  where they live (about 25 percent), or to gain work experience they can  take to other jobs (about 24 percent).
Another study, conducted by the Institute for the Future (IFTF), provides a  different perspective on the characteristics of online gig workers using a  qualitative analysis of interview responses to develop profiles of gig  workers and their motivation. From those interviews, IFTF developed  seven archetypes to describe different types of gig workers, such as  workers wanting to build their own business and maximizing online  platforms to do so; those navigating a life transition; or those optimizing  income on a day-to-day basis (see app. II).
section_title: Different Stakeholder Groups Described Many of the Same Key Benefits and Downsides to Gig Work
subsections: section_title: Key Benefits
paragraphs: The different stakeholder groups we interviewed described many of the  same benefits to participating in gig work. All stakeholder groups  mentioned the following:  flexibility (e.g., to work around other responsibilities, such as  childcare); autonomy (e.g., ability to set own hours and be “own boss”);  income (e.g., supplemental or to fill in between jobs); and  the ability to help build a business, a resume, or experience.
Most stakeholder groups also mentioned the following:  low barrier to entry; and  the ability to pursue a passion.
All of the gig companies we interviewed said flexibility or autonomy, or  both, were benefits. Specifically, one company official said gig workers  have the opportunity to be self-starters, determining when and where they  want to work. Another company official said that the income provides  workers the freedom to leave another job or make ends meet if they are  laid off. Workers in three of our discussion groups also mentioned the  benefits of flexibility and autonomy. Specific benefits mentioned by  workers included being able to work on their own schedule, having control  on pricing their services, and working from where they want.
Flexibility and Autonomy Are Benefits of  Gig Work  “I have a young family and need the extra  cash. I find using an online platform more  convenient than word of mouth.  would like  to use  opportunity to become   entrepreneur. I want to be my own boss 24  hours a day.”
According to local workforce board officials we interviewed, the flexibility  and autonomy of gig work may be especially beneficial for some types of  workers. For example, officials from 8 of the 11 workforce boards said  workers who might benefit most from gig work include those who need  flexible schedules, such as students who are going to school or are  enrolled in training, and those with care-taking responsibilities.
Gig work can also help workers develop job-seeking skills, provide work  experience, or fill in gaps in resumes, according to officials from 10 of the  11 local workforce boards we interviewed. Specifically, a local board  official said traditional companies do not like to see employment gaps;  therefore, the board encourages its clients to pursue consulting or  volunteer work so that there are no gaps on their resumes. The official  added that gig work through short-term contracts is often viewed by  traditional employers as valid employment and could provide the  necessary work experience to help individuals secure more permanent,  full-time work if desired. Moreover, another board official said that certain  types of gig work could help workers enhance their capabilities—for  example by helping them better understand how a business runs and  become more entrepreneurial with better self-employment skills.
According to 9 of 11 local workforce board officials we interviewed, gig  work could also be beneficial for people for whom traditional work may  present challenges, such as individuals with disabilities, ex-offenders,  low-income workers, or those who are unemployed or underemployed.  For example, officials from one local board said gig work benefits harder- to-serve populations because it allows them to earn income while going to  school and by working from home.
section_title: Key Downsides
paragraphs: The different stakeholder groups we interviewed also described many of  the same downsides to participating in gig work. All stakeholder groups  mentioned the following:  lack of financial security;  lack of benefits; and  increased risk that arises from increased liability and high rate of  failure in self-employment, among other reasons.
Many stakeholders also mentioned the following:  lack of stability; and  challenges to running a business that include not understanding the  responsibilities of being self-employed or the length of time it can take  for a new business to become profitable, or not finding the necessary  capital.
Officials from 10 of the 11 local workforce boards we interviewed said that  a lack of financial security was a downside to gig work. Specifically,  workers may have difficulty earning enough to achieve self-sufficiency,  have unpredictable or low income, or experience a high rate of failure with  self-employment. Further, officials from one board that works with short- term contractors in the information technology field said it can be  challenging for U.S. workers to make sufficient pay from work obtained  through professional online platforms because workers face global  competition from those in other countries who are willing to do the same  work for less pay. Similarly, lack of financial security was a concern  among workers in three of our four discussion groups who said low or  unpredictable income was a downside, and this factor was also  mentioned by two of the gig companies we interviewed. workers said they have performed work using an online platform for which  they did not receive payment.
All stakeholder groups we interviewed said the lack of employer-provided  benefits—such as health insurance, unemployment insurance, vacation  pay, and sick pay, among other benefits—was a downside to gig work.  Specifically, one official who provides training to entrepreneurs said it is  difficult for gig workers to project how much their health care will cost and  consequently how much they need to work to cover those costs. “Clients get savvy and cancel on the work.   clock in and out on your mobile device  but if a customer complains the company will  cancel payment from that job. Do a 4-hour job  and then not get paid because  customer  complained that some task did not get done.”  — Gig worker who arranged to perform  housekeeping services through an online gig  company  Lack of Benefits for Gig Workers  “Lack of health insurance possibly keeps  workers who want to be in the on-demand  economy in a job they do not like. This lack of  available health insurance hinders the  entrepreneurial spirit and has an effect on  workers’ risk tolerance.”
Four of the six stakeholder groups we interviewed said a lack of  knowledge about running a business was a challenge to working in the  gig economy. This knowledge is important because according to one  stakeholder we interviewed, drivers for ridesharing companies are  building their own business, but some do not realize the consequences of  engaging in this type of work. Further, officials from one local workforce  board said because barriers to engaging in gig work are low, workers may  enter into this type of work before knowing how to manage their self- employment or understanding its ramifications. Officials at two other local  workforce boards also said gig workers may not understand that they may  face a longer period of time than expected to become successful  entrepreneurs or face challenges obtaining capital needed for their  business.
As previously mentioned, gig work can benefit some harder-to-serve  populations; however, there may be additional downsides for gig workers  who lack technical skills needed to successfully execute the work or those  who are low income or urgently in need of a job, according to many  stakeholders. Specifically, officials from one local workforce board said  there is a difference between gig work for low-skilled workers and higher- skilled workers. They said gig work is not as viable in the long run for  workers who do not have the necessary technical skills. As a result, they  could remain caught in lower-skilled gig work even though their ultimate  goal might be to develop a career. An official from a gig company that  provides professional services said workers are less likely to be  successful in gig work without a specialized skill that is in demand. In  addition, an official from an organization that offers information for  workers providing ridesharing services said that type of gig work helps  workers get by, but does not provide them with future pay raises or a  career.
section_title: Federal Programs and Other Sources Offer Training in Self- Employment Skills That Stakeholders State Gig Workers Need
subsections: section_title: Gig Workers Need Self- Employment Skills Such as Customer Service, Marketing, Digital and Financial Literacy, and Legal Skills, According to Stakeholders
paragraphs: Stakeholders we interviewed said that gig workers need various self- employment skills. In particular, stakeholders identified soft skills, which  include ability to communicate well, and other traits such as entrepreneurial spirit, tolerance of risk and  uncertainty, common sense, and ethics, among others.
In addition to soft skills, stakeholders said that gig workers need business  skills. These skills help them manage the functions that employers  generally provide for their employees, according to one workforce board  official. Business skills mentioned by stakeholders include the following: marketing/branding/having skills in the “business of you;”  financial literacy/management including how to obtain benefits, and estimate costs and price services; digital literacy; and understanding legal rights and obligations including how to write and  read contracts.
Some of the stakeholders we interviewed said that gig workers need to  understand their tax responsibilities. In more traditional employment,  employers are generally responsible for withholding employment taxes— such as income tax and Social Security and Medicare taxes—for their  employees. According to the Internal Revenue Service, however, gig  workers, by virtue of being self-employed, must track their income and  expenses, determine if they must pay quarterly estimated taxes, and  know how to file their annual return. However, not understanding the  responsibilities of their self-employed status could mean that gig workers  will not be compliant with tax law. In the past, we reported a lower level of  tax compliance by self-employed individuals than by employees. Even  workers who understand that they need to pay their own taxes but then  fail to plan appropriately could face paying a large amount in taxes at the  end of the year. One official at a gig company said that someone earning  $60,000 to $80,000 a year, with no taxes withheld, may find it challenging  to pay those taxes when they are due.
In addition, some gig workers might not be aware of these responsibilities  because they consider themselves employees of the gig company,  according to two stakeholders. For example, a gig company official said  that some of its gig workers have asked to speak to the company’s  human resources manager when they have an issue even though the  company considers them to be self-employed business owners. The  official said the company has to remind these workers that they are not  represented by the company’s human resources department. Further, the  Pew Research Center study found that an estimated 26 percent of gig  workers who used online platforms considered themselves to be  employees of the platform they used to find work. Moreover, the study  found that workers who reported that income from gig work was  ‘important’ or ‘essential’ were much more likely to view themselves as  employees.
Some stakeholders also said marketing was an important skill. According  to a gig company official, marketing helps workers grow their business to  the point where they can spend more time engaged in income-generating  work than trying to find additional clients. Gig workers need to understand  they are selling their skills, or, in other words, are in the “business of you,”  and how they present themselves online can affect their opportunities,  said one official from an organization that helps low-income workers  navigate the gig economy. Accurate cost estimating and pricing were also  considered to be important. A gig company official said that pricing is a  skill that involves including all expenses, while leaving room for profit and  accounting for some risk.
Not all workers may be suited for gig work even when provided training in  these skills, according to officials from one workforce board. Using a DOL  Workforce Innovation Fund grant, this board provided a program to help  workers become self-employed and engage in gig work. Board officials  said about 30 to 50 percent of the participants leave the program because  they decide that this type of work is not for them. These officials said they  consider this a positive outcome because the training helps participants  recognize the challenges of self-employment before taking steps that  might have long-term consequences, such as using their life savings to  start a business.
section_title: Selected Workforce Boards and SBA Programs Provide Self- Employment Skills and Training for Gig Workers Based on Perceived Local Area Needs
paragraphs: The 11 local workforce boards we interviewed all served gig workers in  some way. In some cases, local workforce boards directly provided  services to gig workers, and in other cases they indirectly provided  services to gig workers through efforts that more broadly targeted workers  in specific sectors or who were engaged or interested in self-employment  (see fig. 1). Direct services ranged from recruitment to career services,  including providing job coaching and workshops on finding gig work and  developing self-employment skills. Overall, officials from 9 of the 11  boards described these efforts as responses to perceived needs in their  local labor markets.
Among the selected boards that offered workshops, several covered  similar information related to self-employment. The most common topics  included (1) marketing strategies, such as the use of social media; (2)  financial management, including pricing and tax implications; and (3) the  basics of contracting. In addition, one of New York City’s workshops  provided information on the legal aspects of participating in gig work,  and Gainesville’s provided information on obtaining work through online  platforms.
Selected boards also provided indirect support services that were not  specifically targeted to gig workers but served populations that could  include them. For example, Miami’s construction sector initiative did not  specifically train workers for gig work, but the skills it supported could be  applied to gig work in the construction industry, according to officials.  The Seattle board provided self-employment workshops on starting or  growing a small business and marketing that were not specifically  designed for gig workers but could help them obtain gig work, or involved  skills that are transferable to gig work, according to board officials.  Furthermore, Seattle has a tool that can help individuals determine how  much income is needed to be self-sufficient in their local area, which  could also be helpful for individuals engaging in gig work.
The selected boards’ activities varied in the degree to which they focused  on those enrolled in WIOA programs. Some board activities, such as  recruitment events for ride-sharing services in Chicago and Dallas, were  open to the community, including WIOA participants. In Chicago, the  workforce board recruited job seekers for a ridesharing company, and  some of them then used this work as an income source while they  received WIOA services, scheduling it around their WIOA training  activities, according to board officials. In Northern Virginia, by contrast, all  participants in the board’s self-employment initiative were enrolled in  WIOA.
Boards varied in their practices for listing gig work at job centers. Officials  from five local boards said that their job centers could list opportunities  with gig companies, but they were not always sure if the job centers did  so. State and local board officials in two states, however, cited federal  and state provisions as the reason why they required a traditional  employer-employee relationship to list jobs at their job centers. DOL  officials said that the department does not set requirements for the types  of jobs that states can post in their job centers, other than certain  nondiscrimination requirements. They said that states might impose  their own limitations, but most states aim to increase the number of  businesses listing jobs with their job centers.
While officials from all local boards that we interviewed said they provided  services to gig workers either directly or indirectly, some nonetheless  raised concerns about placing job seekers in gig work, questioning the  appropriateness of this type of work under WIOA. Specifically, officials  from some local boards said they saw their primary mission under WIOA  as helping job seekers with barriers to employment find traditional work  rather than task- or project-based work that may lack benefits or job  security. Additionally, an official from one local board said that using  WIOA training funding for services for gig workers would not be a good  use of taxpayer dollars because the ultimate goal for job seekers is  permanent employment. In addition, officials from five local boards noted  that their staff may not be prepared to share information about gig work  opportunities or may be uncomfortable doing so. Because of these  concerns, officials from one state and one local board said that serving  self-employed workers would require a change in “mindset” on the part of  the workforce system as local boards may be cautious about offering  such services.
Officials from other boards, some of which were not included in our  analysis of board services for gig workers, expressed interest in studying  the gig economy. For example, in November 2016, the San Diego board  published a report examining opportunities and challenges associated  with the gig economy, including skill and training needs and the potential  role workforce boards could play. Furthermore, state boards are also  interested in issues facing gig workers. In response to this interest, the  National Governor’s Association has convened a group of states  interested in the gig economy, including officials from several state  boards, according to an association official.
The SBA also provides self-employment services for workers, including  those who engage in gig work. SBA serves the self-employed through  its SCORE mentoring program, Small Business Development Centers,  and Women’s Business Center program. A SCORE association official  said that the association is developing personal branding webinars that  could appeal to gig workers, reflecting a potentially growing need for  services. Officials at two Small Business Development Centers and a  Women’s Business Center said that the centers provide workshops,  counseling, and referrals at no or low cost and are serving gig workers.  The workshops cover topics such as: business plan development;  marketing; financial management, including taxes; and social media.
section_title: Nongovernmental Sources Such as Worker Organizations and Some Gig Companies Also Provide Information on Self-Employment
paragraphs: In addition to governmental programs, information on self-employment  skills for gig workers is provided through self-employment workers’  associations and some gig companies. Specifically, officials from an  association for self-employed workers said that they provide their  members with information on non-occupational skills. They said that they  also host experts on topics such as how to manage episodic income, file  taxes, market their services, and negotiate with clients. Officials from  another group serving self-employed workers said their efforts mostly  focus on filing taxes and the information is provided through webinars and  in-person seminars. Concern over the tax challenges of self-employed  workers prompted the group to partner with a university-based tax policy  center to study the issue.
Three of the six online gig companies we interviewed also said that they  provide some information on non-occupational skills to their gig workers.
For example, an official at one company said that their online platform  has a learning center to help gig workers offering services through the  platform understand common business issues, such as marketing. This  learning center also includes a forum where gig workers can post  questions, share advice, and network with each other. Officials at an  online platform company that allows professional gig workers to access  and perform projects said that they provide information on pricing and tax  filing as well as a suite of business tools to help these gig workers track  tax payments and number of hours billed. Company officials said that  they provide this service to address gaps in information that hindered  these workers in the past, such as documenting a steady income for the  purposes of obtaining a mortgage. An official at a ridesharing company  said that it has partnered with other organizations to provide information  to help drivers, for example, by helping them understand their tax filing  obligations and save for retirement. Nongovernmental organizations have  also played other roles in supporting training for gig workers. For  example, in New York City’s initiative, partners such as the Writer’s Guild  of America, East and Brooklyn Workforce Innovations helped recruit  writers for the board’s training programs. These programs integrated  workshops on financial management, marketing and sales, as well as the  legal aspects of gig work for workers in the media and entertainment  sector, according to local board officials.
section_title: Federal Agencies Are Collecting Data on the Gig Workforce, but Information on Promising Practices Is Not Readily Available
subsections: section_title: Federal Agencies Are Collecting Information, but DOL Has Not Fully Incorporated Gig Work into Its Promising Practices Database
paragraphs: Several federal agencies responsible for data on the workforce and the  economy have ongoing efforts to collect and study data about gig work as  part of their respective missions. These efforts include:
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS): For the first time since 2005, BLS  conducted a survey of contingent workers in May 2017 in an attempt  to better understand workers engaging in alternative forms of work. In  addition to the questions asked in previous years, the survey added  four new questions on whether workers performed short, paid tasks in  the previous week that were arranged through an online platform.  While the 2017 survey data are expected to provide a more refined  picture of such work arrangements than was previously possible, BLS  officials said that those data will not be available at the state and local  level because of the small sample size. In addition, BLS has a Career  Outlook website on gig work that provides information about the  prevalence of gig workers and their occupations, among other  information.
Department of Commerce: The Commerce Department also issued a  report on online platforms that allow gig workers to access projects or  tasks. The report used publicly available data to assess the size and  scope of platform transactions and examine the potential effect on  consumers and workers.
Census Bureau: Within the Commerce Department, Census Bureau  (Census) officials collaborated with researchers from the University of  Maryland to study the gig economy by comparing Internal Revenue  Service (IRS) self-employment tax data and BLS self-employment  household survey data from 1996 through 2012. According to  Census officials, they are undertaking this research to better  understand why IRS data suggest long-term growth in self- employment while BLS data suggest little or no growth.
Federal Reserve Board: As discussed previously, the Federal  Reserve Board studied online and offline informal work that took place  over a 6-month period to examine participant motives and attitudes.  Federal Reserve officials indicated they will continue to annually  monitor the enterprising and informal work activities of the U.S. adult  population in the Survey of Household Economics and  Decisionmaking (SHED) publication and public data posting.
Despite these efforts to better understand gig work at the national level,  selected state and local workforce board officials said that they lacked  local labor market data on gig workers and that it would be helpful if DOL  shared information about other boards’ efforts to serve these workers.  Officials from all of the state boards we interviewed said that they lacked  labor market information on gig workers. An official with one local  workforce board said that getting good, reliable data about who is looking  for gig work is a challenge. If boards do not have these data, it could be  difficult for them to determine the prevalence of gig workers in the local  labor market and to design services for them. Officials from the local  workforce boards that undertook specific efforts to serve gig workers said  that they did so because they perceived that gig workers were important  to the local labor market (e.g., technology workers in San Francisco and  media and entertainment workers in New York City) or because the local  area faced high levels of unemployment and under-employment (e.g.,  Gainesville, Florida). Officials from most local boards we interviewed  said that their job centers had not necessarily seen much interest in gig  work, which, in their opinion, could be a reflection of the fact that clients  are typically seeking traditional employment, are unaware of the gig  economy, or may not see job centers as the appropriate place to obtain  gig work, among other reasons. DOL officials that said gig work may be  part of “in-demand” jobs in multiple sectors and BLS is considering how to  quantify this work; however, to date, data in this area are limited. Given  these challenges, officials at all state and local boards we interviewed  said that it would be helpful if DOL shared information about other boards’  efforts to serve these workers.
DOL disseminates information on promising practices, but boards may  not be readily able to find information related to gig workers. Federal  internal control standards state that agency management should analyze  information related to achieving agency goals and communicate that  information to external parties. To communicate with the public  workforce system and develop its capacity to implement innovative  approaches, DOL uses a portal, known as WorkforceGPS, which includes  information from program evaluations and communities of practice for  those interested in specific topics, among other resources. However,  finding information in WorkforceGPS that is relevant to gig workers  requires multiple searches and does not consistently yield relevant  results. When we conducted a search of the portal, we found relevant  documents under terms such as “self-employment” and  “entrepreneurship,” but did not consistently find those same documents  under search terms such as “gig,” “on-demand,” and other related  terms. Given that online gig work is an emerging area for researchers  and policymakers and there is no universally-accepted definition or term  used to describe it, some workforce boards may not associate gig work  with self-employment and know to search for information under that term  unless a specific reference is provided. Linking “gig” and related terms to  self-employment may be particularly important because DOL officials  indicated that recent and soon-to-be issued evaluations from self- employment initiatives funded through the Workforce Innovation Fund  grants may yield information relevant to gig workers. Furthermore,  although WorkforceGPS includes several communities of practice, it does  not currently include one on gig workers. Helping workforce boards easily  find and share promising practices relevant to gig workers would allow  them to fully and efficiently be able to help individuals who want to  engage in this type of work.
section_title: Workforce Boards Said They Face Challenges in Reporting and Documenting Performance Outcomes for Gig Workers
paragraphs: Documenting employment and earnings outcomes for gig workers may be  challenging for workforce boards. When participants are enrolled in WIOA  programs, workforce boards are required to document and report  participants’ employment and earnings outcomes. However, unlike  Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage record data used to verify outcomes  for those placed in traditional employment under WIOA, supplemental  wage information, used to verify these outcomes for gig workers, may be  challenging for boards to obtain. verify outcomes. Officials from seven local boards that provided  services for gig workers and three state boards also said that the  requirements to document employment and earnings outcomes are a  disincentive to serving those workers. In addition, officials from three  state boards said that, because of the challenges in obtaining  supplemental information, outcomes of self-employed workers, including  gig workers, are not included in the performance reports that their states  forward to DOL, with officials from one state specifically pointing to cost  and data reliability issues.
American Job Center Director in San Francisco and local   workforce board officials in Seattle and Dallas. | GAO 17 561.
In December 2016, DOL issued additional guidance stating that under  WIOA, states may continue to support outcomes using supplemental  wage information. However, if states use supplemental wage  information to verify employment, they must also use it to verify earnings  outcomes, a change from prior DOL policy. DOL officials said they did not  believe the new supplemental wage information requirements would limit boards in serving self-employed workers. Rather, using supplemental  wage information to verify employment and earnings outcomes holds  boards accountable while allowing them to receive credit for assisting  self-employed workers, according to DOL officials. They also said that  workforce boards asked for updated guidance on using supplemental  information on serving self-employed workers, which would include gig  workers. In June 2017, DOL issued guidance on the use of supplemental  wage information, which stated that worksheets, signed and attested to  by program participants, is one acceptable type of documentation for self- employed workers.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: While gig work is not a new phenomenon, the advent of online platforms  has made this type of self-employment more readily accessible, possibly  for the first time, for many individuals who are seeking new career  opportunities or supplemental income. On the one hand, this newfound  access to gig work can help individuals across many industries, skill  levels, and motivations seek and earn extra sources of income. On the  other hand, some of these individuals may not be aware of its risks, such  as financial insecurity and lack of benefits, and responsibilities, such as  tax implications.
Easier online access to gig work is relatively new, but federal agencies  such as DOL and SBA have had ongoing programs designed to assist  people with the challenges of self-employment, such as marketing,  pricing, and tax implications. In recent years, DOL has funded several  grants and programs to gather information specific to improving self- employment programs. However, DOL’s system for receiving and sharing  data with workforce boards, WorkforceGPS, does not consistently link  relevant resources for these workers to terms that are currently being  used to describe the gig economy, such as “gig.” Although there is no  universally accepted term or definition for this type of work,  WorkforceGPS’s organization of information under topical headers does  not capture the connection between gig work and self-employment,  making this information less readily available. Therefore, local boards that  want or need to help gig workers may have limited knowledge of how or  where to find federal resources or may not know that they exist. Further,  boards could benefit from other boards’ experiences in this area. Cross- referencing common terms for gig work with existing promising practices  related to self-employment or establishing a community of practice could  help boards share relevant information. This is especially important now  that evaluations from DOL’s Workforce Innovation Fund grants on self- employment have been recently released and could be instructive. In  addition, while helping individuals obtain gig work is not the mainstay of  the nation’s workforce system, some local boards have nonetheless  attempted to serve these job seekers as the gig economy continues to  evolve and in instances where such workers are a salient feature of the  local labor market. For these particular boards, promising practices on  documenting employment outcomes, for example, could lessen the  challenges they face in reporting performance outcomes for gig workers  served.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: The Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration, should  take steps to help workforce boards readily find and share information on  promising practices related to serving gig workers by, for example, cross  referencing promising practices on self-employment and other relevant  practices in WorkforceGPS with terms commonly used to describe the gig  economy, by creating a community of practice on this topic, or other  mechanisms, as appropriate. (Recommendation 1)
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this product to the Department of Labor (DOL) for  comment. In its comments, reproduced in appendix III, DOL agreed with  our recommendation. The department stated that it will continue to  explore the dynamics of the gig economy and make resources available  to the workforce system, employers, workers, researchers, policymakers,  and others. DOL also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. We also provided a draft of this product to  the Departments of Commerce and Education and the Small Business  Administration, but they did not have comments. In addition, we provided  relevant report sections to the authors of the studies included in our report  for their technical comments.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its  issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  appropriate congressional committees; Secretaries of the Departments of  Commerce, Education, and Labor and the Administrator of the Small  Business Administration; and other interested parties. In addition, the  report will be 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 brownbarnesc@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 IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: We examined (1) what is known about the characteristics of gig workers  and the work they perform, including its benefits and downsides; (2) the  non-occupational skills and training stakeholders indicate are needed by  gig workers and how they are provided; and (3) the challenges, if any,  that select federal agencies and workforce development boards cite in  providing supports for gig workers.
To address our research questions, we:  1.  reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations and guidance;  2.  conducted a review of relevant literature;  3.  reviewed DOL’s technical assistance website and federal internal  control standards that address communication with external parties;  and  4.  conducted interviews with federal agencies, state agencies, local  workforce boards, gig workers, gig companies, and researchers and  other stakeholders.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2016 to September  2017 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: Review of Federal Laws, Regulations, and Guidance
paragraphs: We reviewed the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and the  Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) to identify changes in  performance accountability requirements between the two laws. We also  reviewed regulations from the Departments of Labor (DOL) and  Education implementing WIOA and DOL Training and Employment  Guidance Letters related to performance measures and self- employment, to determine outcome information reporting requirements  and the guidance DOL has provided to assist boards in submitting  documentation.
section_title: Literature Review
paragraphs: To address our first and second research questions, we conducted a  literature review to identify key government, industry, and academic  studies examining the gig workforce, which we characterized for the  purposes of this report as single projects or tasks that a self-employed  individual performs on demand for pay. Our characterization included  both online and offline gig work. We searched relevant databases, such  as ProQuest Research Library, Academic OneFile, Scopus, and SocSci  Search to identify reports, dissertations, web references, working papers,  and journal and magazine articles studies from 2010 to the present. In  order to identify a wide range of studies, we used search terms including:  gig economy, 1099 economy, on-demand economy, sharing economy,  and informal work.
Our literature searches generated 383 references. In addition to the  sources identified through literature searches, we also reviewed studies  recommended by federal agencies, experts and internal and external  stakeholders. We excluded from our review a total of 330 studies that  were published prior to 2010 or did not pertain to our scope, such as  those that primarily (1) examined worker classification issues or worker  benefits and protections; (2) did not examine gig workers who were self- employed or included workers providing goods or capital assets where  the information on workers providing labor services could not be broken  out separately from those providing goods or capital assets; (3) included  non-U.S. workers; or (4) focused on too narrow of a subset of the gig  worker population (i.e. immigrants or workers only in a particular  geographic region or occupation).
We conducted detailed reviews of the nine studies that met these initial  screening criteria. Our reviews involved an assessment of each study’s  research methodology, including its data quality, research design, and  analytic techniques, as well as a summary of each study’s relevant  findings and conclusions. We also assessed the extent to which each  study’s data and methods were appropriate to support its findings that we  included in our report. In addition, we conducted interviews with the  studies’ authors, as necessary, to gain a better understanding of their  methodology and findings. Through this process, we identified and  reviewed four key studies that met our topical and methodological  criteria.
section_title: Search of DOL Technical Assistance Website
paragraphs: To address our third objective, in March 2017 we searched DOL’s  technical assistance website portal, WorkforceGPS, using terms related  to gig work and reviewed federal internal control standards to assess  how information related to gig workers was being communicated to  workforce boards. Specifically, we searched the WorkforceGPS portal for  terms related to gig work to determine if those searches would result in  documents that could help workforce boards serve gig workers (e.g.,  documents related to self-employment). We searched on the following  terms: “gig,” “on-demand,” “freelance,” “independent contractor,” “self- employed,” “self-employment,” “contractor,” “unincorporated self- employed,” “project-based,” “nonemployer,” “sharing economy,” “platform  economy,” “digital economy,” “1099 economy,” and “entrepreneurship.”  We selected these terms because they reflect common terms used within  literature and by researchers and other stakeholders we interviewed to  describe gig work. We reviewed the results of these searches and  documented those that did not return any documents. We also reviewed  the communities of practice list within WorkforceGPS.
section_title: Interviews and Site Visits
paragraphs: To address all objectives, we conducted interviews with officials at DOL,  including officials of the Employment and Training Administration— headquarters and regional staff—and the Bureau of Labor Statistics; the  Department of Education; the Department of Commerce, including the  Census Bureau; and the Small Business Administration. We also  interviewed officials of the Federal Reserve Board about related research  efforts.
State and Local Workforce Development Boards  We conducted semi-structured interviews with officials at 11 local  workforce development boards in 9 states to identify efforts to serve gig  workers (see table 3). Local boards were selected based on a range of  criteria, including information collected during initial interviews with DOL  and local board officials and industry groups, a private sector report with  information on cities with the largest percentages of workers with income  from online platforms, and other relevant documents, including our past  work on local workforce boards. Of the 11 local workforce boards we  interviewed, we visited five—Chicago, Illinois; Gainesville, Florida; San  Francisco and Sunnyvale, California; and Vienna, Virginia. Overall, in  selecting the boards that we visited in person, we considered factors such  as the potential volume of gig workers in the local area; the range of  board services provided to gig workers; the opportunity to learn about  different forms of gig work (i.e., both online and offline gig work); the role  that DOL grants may have played in supporting boards’ efforts to serve  gig workers; and opportunities to interview gig workers and gig  companies. In these locations, we also interviewed American Job Center  directors to examine issues related to gig workers at the service delivery  level. In our interviews with local boards, we asked about relevant  services for gig workers, non-occupational skills and training, and the  benefits and downsides of gig work. Our findings from these interviews  cannot be generalized to all state or local workforce boards.
In addition, we interviewed another workforce board, the San Diego  Workforce Partnership, about a report it prepared on gig workers, Gig  Economy: Special Report (San Diego, California: Nov. 2016). That  interview was limited to the report’s methodology and recommendations  and did not address issues related to the skills and training needs of gig  workers or the benefits and downsides of gig work.
In addition, in almost all states where we interviewed local workforce  boards, we conducted phone interviews with state workforce boards,  state workforce agencies, or both. In our interviews with state agencies,  we asked about issues associated with reporting performance outcomes  for gig workers and sources of labor market information related to gig  workers, among other things.
In four of the locations we visited—Chicago, Illinois; Gainesville, Florida;  and San Francisco and Sunnyvale, California—we held discussion  groups with gig workers to obtain their perspectives on gig work. The  discussion groups included gig workers—a total of 15 workers across all  groups—who had obtained work through online platforms, as well as  those who provided gig services offline. The services they offered varied  from housecleaning, household repair, delivery, and ridesharing, to  professional services such as consulting and software development. In  each location, we provided participant selection criteria to local board  officials who then recruited workers for the groups. Specifically, we  requested that the workers be participating in or seeking gig work and be  current or recent clients of the workforce board.
The discussion groups, which we conducted from July through October  2016, involved structured small-group discussions designed to gain more  in-depth information about specific issues that could not easily be  obtained from another method, such as a survey or individual interviews.  Our discussions included multiple groups with varying characteristics but  some similarity on one or two homogeneous characteristics, in this case,  experience in the gig economy.
Additionally, we conducted interviews with select companies that hire gig  workers. These companies included both online platform companies and  companies and organizations that hired gig workers offline. We selected  online platform companies from a private-sector database of such  companies and interviewed the database creator to assess the process  used to compile it. We interviewed online platform companies that  reflected a range of services that gig workers provide, such as in the  areas of transportation, food and goods delivery, and professional  services. The offline companies and organizations we interviewed  included those in food services, construction, a manufacturing incubator,  and non-profits that serve ex-offenders and workers with disabilities. We  interviewed gig companies about the non-occupational skills and training  needed by gig workers, and the benefits and downsides of gig work.
We also conducted interviews with 30 non-federal researchers and other  stakeholders. We identified these interviewees through our literature  review and recommendations from experts and internal stakeholders. We  interviewed these researchers about studies they had conducted on gig  workers and about gig work in general, specifically the non-occupational  skills and training needed by gig workers, and the benefits and downsides  of gig for workers. The individual researchers and research organizations  we interviewed included:
Alan B. Krueger, Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Princeton
Andrew Reamer, Research Professor, The George Washington
Annette Bernhardt, Senior Researcher, Center for Labor Research  and Education, University of California, Berkeley;
Aspen Institute, Future of Work Initiative;
Lawrence Katz, Professor of Economics, Harvard University;
Marina Gorbis, Executive Director, Institute for the Future; and
Penn Schoen Berland.
We also interviewed other stakeholders to obtain a range of perspectives  on gig work, and to supplement the information obtained through our gig  worker discussion groups by obtaining the perspectives of other entities,  some of which represent, advocate for, and share information with gig  workers. The other stakeholders we interviewed included:
American Association of Community Colleges;
Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness;
Economic Policy Institute;  Institute for Work and the Economy;
Labor Market Information Institute;
National Association for the Self-Employed;
National Association of State Workforce Agencies;
National Association of Workforce Boards;
National Employment Law Project;
National Governors Association;
Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center, Women’s Business Center,
Small Business Development Center of San Francisco;
The Gig Work Project;
The Rideshare Guy blog;
The Workers Lab;
Walter & Elise Haas Fund; and
Washington State University, Washington Small Business  Development Center.
section_title: Appendix II: Archetypes of Online Gig Workers as Described by the Institute for the Future, 2016
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above Andrew Sherrill (Director), Clarita  Mrena (Assistant Director), Meeta Engle (Assistant Director), Amy  Anderson, Christopher Morehouse, Derry Henrick, Amy Sweet, Holly Dye,  Philip Farah, Alexander Galuten, Kirsten Lauber, Serena Lo, Anna Maria  Ortiz, and Mimi Nguyen made significant contributions to this report. In  addition, key support was provided by Nora Boretti, Elizabeth Curda,  Julianne Cutts, Clifton Douglas, Adam Gomez, Charlie Jeszeck, Yvonne  Jones, Michael Kniss, Benjamin Licht, Karen O’Conor, William Shear,  Almeta Spencer, Tom Short, and Ariel Vega.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Contingent Workforce: Size, Characteristics, Earnings, and Benefits.  GAO-15-168R. Washington, D.C.: April 20, 2015.
Workforce Investment Act: Local Areas Face Challenges Helping  Employers Fill Some Types of Skilled Jobs. GAO-14-19. Washington,  D.C.: December 2, 2013.
Entrepreneurial Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Improve Programs’  Collaboration, Data-Tracking, and Performance Management.  GAO-12-819. Washington, D.C.: August 23, 2012.
Workforce Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations between Workforce  Boards and Employers Helped Meet Local Needs. GAO-12-97.  Washington, D.C.: January 19, 2012.