Employment and Training: Labor's Green Jobs Efforts Highlight Challenges of Targeted Training Programs for Emerging Industries
Published: 2013-06-19T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Labor received $500 million from the Recovery Act to help create, better understand, and provide training for jobs within the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries, commonly referred to as "green jobs." Since 2009, Labor has also "greened" existing programs and funded additional green jobs training grants and other efforts.
In light of the amount of funding targeted to green programs within Labor, GAO examined: (1) what is known about the objectives and coordination of Labor's green jobs efforts, (2) what type of green jobs training grantees provided and how selected grantees aligned their training to meet employers' green jobs needs, (3) what is known about program outcomes and what challenges, if any, grantees faced in implementing their programs, and (4) what Labor has done to assist and monitor its green jobs grantees. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations; surveyed selected offices within Labor using two questionnaires--one for directly- funded green jobs efforts and one for other efforts; interviewed Labor officials and 11 out of 103 green jobs training grantees; and analyzed relevant Labor documents and data.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Of the $595 million identified by Labor as having been appropriated or allocated specifically for green jobs activities since 2009, approximately $501 million went toward efforts with training and support services as their primary objective, with much of that funding provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Because the Recovery Act directed federal agencies to spend funds quickly and prudently, Labor implemented a number of high-investment green jobs efforts simultaneously. As a result, in some cases, Recovery Act training programs were initiated prior to a full assessment of the demand for green jobs, which presented challenges for grantees. While Labor's internal agencies initially communicated with each other and with other federal agencies after the Recovery Act was passed, most Recovery Act grants have ended or are winding down.
Labor created its green jobs definitional framework to provide local flexibility, and grantees we interviewed broadly interpreted Labor's framework to include any job that could be linked, directly or indirectly, to a beneficial environmental outcome. Labor's training data show most participants were trained in construction or manufacturing. While the findings of our site visits are not generalizable, all grantees we interviewed said they had worked closely with local employers to align their training program with the green skills needs of local employers. Most grantees we interviewed also told us they had incorporated green elements into existing training programs aimed at traditional skills, such as teaching weatherization as part of a carpentry training program.
The outcomes of Labor's green jobs training programs remain uncertain, in part because data on final outcomes were not yet available for about 40 percent of grantees, as of the end of 2012. Analysis of grantees with final outcome data shows they collectively reported training slightly more individuals than they had projected, but job placements were at 55 percent of the target. Training-related job placement rates remain unknown because Labor's Office of Inspector General (OIG) found these data unreliable. Grantees we interviewed were generally positive about Labor's green job training programs, but most said they had faced challenges during implementation, including: (1) a lack of reliable green jobs labor market information, (2) insufficient time to meet grant requirements, (3) knowledge gaps surrounding green skills and changing energy policies, and (4) difficulty placing participants into green jobs, primarily due to the overall poor economy.
Labor has provided technical assistance and taken steps to monitor green jobs training grantees through on-site monitoring visits and quarterly reviews. During these visits and reviews, Labor officials assessed grantee performance, such as by comparing reported program outcomes, including job placements, to targeted performance levels. However, Labor provided only limited guidance on how to document reported job placements. Labor officials required grantees with lower than projected performance levels to implement corrective action plans. In addition, Labor officials told us they have taken steps to improve the quality of grantee reported data, such as by forming an internal workgroup to identify ways to improve the technical assistance they provide to grantees on reporting performance outcomes.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that Labor identify lessons learned from the green jobs training programs to enhance its ability to implement such programs in emerging industries. Labor agreed with our recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)  provided the Department of Labor (Labor) $500 million in funding aimed  at training and placing workers into jobs in the “energy efficiency and  renewable energy” industries, commonly referred to as “green jobs.”  While many of these grants have ended or are currently winding down,  they were initiated as part of a strategy aimed at moving the United  States toward greater energy independence and security, and green jobs  research and training programs were created that were expected to help  American workers develop the specialized skills they would need to find  and maintain employment in green jobs. Congress passed the framework  for this investment—the Green Jobs Act of 2007—more than 5 years  ago, and according to Labor officials, funds for green jobs programs were  not appropriated until the passage of the Recovery Act in 2009. More  recently, Labor has launched a number of efforts to “green” several of its  existing programs, and has funded additional green jobs training grants,  including the $38 million Green Jobs Innovation Fund (GJIF) grant  program. In total, Labor funded 103 green jobs training grantees through  the three Recovery Act-funded green jobs training programs and the GJIF  program. In light of the significant amount of funding targeted to green  jobs training programs within Labor, this review examines:  1.  What is known about the objectives and coordination of Labor’s green  jobs efforts?  2.  What type of green jobs training did grantees provide and how did  selected grantees align their training to meet employers’ green jobs  needs?  3.  What is known about program outcomes and what challenges, if any,  did grantees face in implementing their programs?  4.  What has Labor done to assist and monitor its green jobs grantees?
In addition, the Recovery Act requires that GAO conduct bimonthly  reviews of how the act’s funds are used by recipients. As part of this  review, we examined the use of Recovery Act funds along with other  federal funding.
To address the first research question on the objectives and coordination  of Labor’s green jobs efforts, we compiled an inventory of Labor’s green  jobs efforts by requesting information from 14 different offices across  Labor. These 14 offices were selected based on the likelihood of their  administering a green jobs effort or program. We asked these offices to list two separate sets of efforts: (1) efforts where federal funds were  appropriated or allocated specifically for green jobs activities and, (2)  efforts where federal funds were not specifically appropriated or allocated  for green jobs activities, but where the office sought to incorporate green  elements into either an existing program or ongoing activity. We gathered  additional information on these efforts through two follow-up  questionnaires and received fully completed questionnaires for nearly all  efforts.
Because the majority of Recovery Act funding for green jobs efforts was  directed toward training programs, we focused much of our review on four  grant programs—the three green jobs training programs funded by the  Recovery Act (Energy Training Partnership grants, Pathways out of  Poverty grants, and State Energy Sector Partnership and Training grants)  as well as the newer Green Jobs Innovation Fund. To describe the  characteristics of the 103 green jobs training grantees of these four grant  programs, we also collected data from the department on the  characteristics of green jobs grantees, including grantee location and  organizational type.
To better understand the type of green jobs training grantees provided,  how grantees aligned their training to meet green jobs needs, and what  challenges, if any, they faced in implementing their programs, we  interviewed 11 out of the 103 green jobs training grantees and analyzed  data provided by Labor. We interviewed grantees in states that had a  relatively high number of Labor green jobs grant recipients, states where  grantees or sub-grantees received GJIF funds, and states in different  geographic regions.information about the types of green jobs training that were funded by  Labor’s green jobs training grants and the outcomes of grantees’  programs, including green job placement. We specifically asked grantees  about any challenges they may have encountered as they developed and  implemented their program, including whether they experienced  challenges placing participants into green jobs. We cannot generalize our  findings beyond the interviews we conducted.
During our grantee interviews, we collected  To assess the reliability of Labor’s data on training type and outcomes,  we (1) reviewed existing documentation related to the data sources,  including Labor’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reports, (2)  electronically tested the data to identify obvious problems with  completeness or accuracy, and (3) interviewed knowledgeable agency  officials about the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently  reliable for limited purposes. Specifically, we determined that training type  data were sufficiently reliable for purposes of reporting out on the types of  training most frequently provided by grantees. However, based upon the  OIG’s findings, we determined that the outcome data were not sufficiently  reliable to determine the success of the programs and that data on the  extent to which grantees entered training-related employment were not  reliable enough to report.
To describe Labor’s technical assistance and monitoring efforts, we  reviewed technical assistance guides and Labor’s Core Monitoring guide,  interviewed Labor officials, and discussed Labor’s technical assistance  with selected grantees. We also obtained and reviewed copies of Labor’s  monitoring reports for green jobs training grantees. In conducting this  review, we also reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, guidance and  pertinent Labor reports and procedures. A more detailed explanation of  our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2012 to June 2013 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: The Workforce Investment System and Green Jobs Act of 2007
paragraphs: The Department of Labor oversees a number of employment and training  programs administered by state and local workforce boards and one-stop  career centers established under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998  (WIA). The green jobs training programs Labor has overseen were  created under the Green Jobs Act of 2007, which amended WIA. The  Green Jobs Act of 2007 was passed as part of the Energy Independence   which was intended to move the United  and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),States toward greater energy independence and security and to increase  the production of clean renewable fuels, among other objectives. This act  directed the Secretary of Labor to work in consultation with the Secretary  of Energy to create a new worker training program to prepare workers for  careers in the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries.  However, funds for these programs were not appropriated until the  passage of the Recovery Act in 2009, according to Labor officials.
section_title: Green Jobs and the Recovery Act
paragraphs: The Recovery Act appropriated $500 million in funding for competitive  green jobs grant programs at Labor. The current administration presented  the green jobs training grant program as part of a broad national strategy  both to create new jobs and to reform how Americans create and  consume energy. Specifically, the administration articulated a vision for  federal investments in renewable energy to involve coordination across a  number of federal agencies to create new, well-paying jobs for Americans  and to make such jobs available to all workers.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) was responsible for  overseeing the implementation of the green jobs training programs that  were authorized in the Green Jobs Act of 2007 and funded through the  Recovery Act. In June 2009, ETA announced a series of five Recovery  Act grant competitions related to green jobs, three of which were primarily  focused on training. All of these programs are scheduled to end before  the end of July 2013. Table 1 describes these five programs and identifies  the types of organizations eligible to receive each grant.
Between September 2010 and October 2012, Labor’s OIG issued a  series of three reports related to the department’s Recovery Act green  jobs programs, including training programs. The most recent report  raised questions about the low job placement and retention of trained  program participants, the short amount of time for which many  participants received training, and limitations of available employment and  retention data, among other things.
section_title: Labor’s Broad Framework for Green Jobs
paragraphs: Labor has used a broad framework to define green jobs, incorporating  various elements that have emerged over time as the understanding of  what constitutes a green job has evolved. As part of the Green Jobs Act  of 2007, WIA was amended to identify seven energy efficiency and  renewable energy industries targeted for green jobs training funds. In  addition, beginning in 2009, Labor issued information on 12 emerging  green sectors as part of a broader effort to describe how the green  economy was redefining traditional jobs and the skills required to carry   Most recently, in 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics  out those jobs.(BLS) released a two-part definition of green jobs that was used to count  the number of jobs that could be considered green either because what  the work produced or how the work was performed benefitted the  environment.time to define green jobs.
section_title: Labor Has Focused Its Green Jobs Efforts Largely on Job Training
subsections: section_title: Most Funding for Green Jobs Efforts Has Been Directed toward Training Workers
paragraphs: According to funding information provided by Labor and our survey of  Labor’s directly-funded green jobs efforts, most funding for green jobs  efforts at Labor has been directed toward programs designed to train  individuals for green jobs, with less funding supporting efforts with other  objectives, such as data collection or information materials. Indeed,  approximately $501 million (84 percent) of the $595 million identified by  offices at Labor as having been appropriated or allocated specifically for  green jobs activities since 2009 went toward efforts with training and  support services as their primary objective.million, or 12 percent of the total amount of funding for green jobs   In total, approximately $73  activities, was reported appropriated or allocated for data collection and  reporting efforts.
Most of the funding for green jobs efforts was provided through the  Recovery Act, which funded both training and non-training-focused  projects at Labor in part to increase energy efficiency and the use of  renewable energy sources nationwide. In addition to Recovery Act  funding for green jobs efforts, funding information provided by Labor and  through our survey of directly-funded green jobs efforts indicate that  Labor has allocated at least an additional $89 million since 2009 to  support seven other green jobs efforts that have been implemented by  five of Labor’s offices (see fig. 2). For a brief description of each of  Labor’s green jobs efforts for which funds were appropriated or allocated,  see appendix II.
The Recovery Act directed federal agencies to spend the funds it made  available quickly and prudently, and Labor implemented a number of  relatively brief but high-investment green jobs efforts simultaneously. As a  result, in some cases, Recovery Act training programs were initiated prior  to a full assessment of the demand for green jobs. Specifically,  Recovery Act-funded green jobs training grantees designed and began to  implement their green jobs training programs at the same time states  were developing green job definitions and beginning to collect workforce  and labor market information on the prevalence and likely growth of green  jobs through the State Labor Market Information Improvement grants,  which were also funded with Recovery Act funds. Furthermore, BLS  launched its Green Jobs initiative—which included various surveys  designed to help define and measure the prevalence of green jobs—after  many green jobs training programs had begun. ETA officials noted that  BLS’s development of the definition of green jobs was a deliberative and  extensive process that required consulting stakeholders and the public.  They also said that BLS’s timeline for defining green jobs differed from  ETA’s timeline for awarding and executing grants, which was driven by  Recovery Act mandates.
Labor has made subsequent investments that build upon lessons learned  through the Recovery Act grant programs. For example, ETA initiated the  $38 million GJIF program in 2011 to support job training opportunities for  workers in green industry sectors and occupations. In developing the  GJIF grant program, ETA considered lessons learned through the  Recovery Act grant programs. For example, various stakeholders  including employers, the public workforce system, federal agencies, and  foundations identified Registered Apprenticeship—training that combines  job related technical instruction with structured on-the-job learning  experiences for skilled trades and allows participants to earn wages—as  a valuable workforce strategy. ETA acknowledged that upgrading basic  skills, including literacy and math, is critical to ensure job placement and  suggested that training participants exclusively in green skills is not  always sufficient. Consequently, ETA required GJIF grantees to  implement green jobs training programs that would either forge linkages  between Registered Apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs or  deliver integrated basic skills and occupational training through  community-based organizations. Figure 3 shows a timeline illustrating the  rollout of selected green jobs grants at Labor and the time periods during   as well as the timing of BLS’s efforts to  which these grants were active,collect data on green jobs. With the exception of the GJIF grants, all of  these efforts will have been completed by July 2013.
Grantees from all but six states received at least one of the 103 green  jobs training grants that were awarded by ETA,, but grantees were  somewhat concentrated within certain regions of the country. Specifically,  most states with three or more grantees were located in the Northeast,  West, or Midwest regions of the country. Four states and the District of  Columbia received five or more green jobs training grants: California,  Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania. Figure 4 shows the number of  green jobs training grants awarded by state.
In terms of organizational type, most green jobs training grants were  awarded to nonprofit organizations and state workforce agencies (see fig.  5). Specifically, 44 percent of green jobs training grants were awarded to  nonprofit organizations and 34 percent were awarded to state  governmental agencies or departments. In addition, 10 percent of  grantees were organized labor or labor management organizations. ETA  officials from all six of its regional offices said that in terms of  organizational type, green jobs training grantees did not differ  substantially from the types of grantees ETA typically oversees. ETA  officials said building partnerships had been an important focus of the  green jobs grants, and indeed ETA’s grant solicitations required, or in  some cases encouraged, grant recipients, regardless of organizational  type, to develop partnerships with various stakeholders, such as  representatives of the workforce system, industry groups, employers,  unions, the education and training community, nonprofits, or community- based organizations. Staff from ETA’s regional offices said that some  grantees developed new and successful partnerships as a result of the  grants, including partnerships with labor unions.
More than half of ETA’s green jobs training grantees implemented their  grants through sub-grantees, or a network of local affiliates, rather than  providing training services directly to participants. Grantees that contract  with sub-grantees or local affiliates to provide services are responsible for  monitoring and overseeing how all grant funds are used, effectively  delegating day-to-day oversight responsibility from Labor to the primary  grantee.
section_title: Labor’s Efforts to Infuse Green Jobs into Existing Programs
paragraphs: In addition to Labor’s direct investments in green jobs, several offices at  Labor have infused green elements into their ongoing activities even  though funds were not specifically appropriated or allocated for these  green jobs efforts. In total, of the 14 Labor offices we surveyed, 6  identified and implemented 48 such efforts (for a list of the efforts, see  appendix III). Some of these offices added a “layer of green” to existing  training programs or other activities. For example, according to material  provided by Labor, most YouthBuild programs have incorporated green  building into their construction training. Other efforts focused on providing  information materials, forming partnerships, or conducting publicity and  outreach, among other things. For example, the Women’s Bureau  created a guide on sustainable careers for women and Labor’s  Occupational Safety and Health Administration contributed to an  Environmental Protection Agency publication on best practices for  improving indoor air quality during home energy upgrades. Further, in  2010 the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships hosted  a roundtable discussion about green jobs between the Secretary of Labor  and leaders from national foundations and discussed how to create  employment opportunities for low-income populations in the green jobs  industry.
section_title: Several of Labor’s Offices Coordinate on Implementing Green Jobs Efforts within Labor or with Other Federal Agencies
paragraphs: Although funding for green jobs efforts at Labor has shifted and green  jobs efforts funded through the Recovery Act are winding down, a few of  Labor’s ongoing programs or efforts continue to emphasize green jobs or  skills, and Labor continues to incorporate green elements into existing  programs by coordinating internally on an as-needed basis. After the  passage of the Recovery Act, a number of Labor’s offices worked  together to implement the requirements of the act, and Labor officials said  that they collaborated on green jobs efforts on a fairly regular basis and  that more formal green jobs meetings across the department were  common. For those green jobs efforts where green elements have been  infused into ongoing activities even though funds were not specifically  appropriated or allocated for green jobs efforts, offices at Labor indicated  through our survey that they continue to coordinate on such efforts within  Labor and across other federal agencies, albeit in a less formal manner.  For example, according to our survey of these indirectly-funded green  jobs efforts, for 37 of 46 of the efforts listed in appendix III, offices said  that they coordinated with others at Labor, and for 30 of 46 of the efforts,   In addition, it is  they reported coordinating with other federal agencies.likely that coordination on green jobs efforts will continue to occur on an  ad-hoc basis, especially as funding and priorities within the department  shift. For example, Labor recently reported that due to federal budget  cuts, BLS has discontinued its reporting on employment in green jobs.
According to a Labor official, after the Recovery Act was passed, Labor  collaborated with other departments, such as the Department of Energy  (Energy) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)  to foster job growth for a new green economy. For example, Labor’s  Occupational Safety and Health Administration worked with Energy on  retrofitting and safety activities, and Labor also partnered with HUD to  provide green jobs training and possible employment opportunities to  public housing residents. In addition, Labor entered into various  Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) after the Recovery Act was  passed to collaborate on green jobs-related issues with other federal  agencies. For example, the Secretaries of Energy, Labor, and the  Department of Education announced a collaboration to connect jobs to  training programs and career pathways and to make cross-agency  communication a priority. While these examples highlight coordination on  green jobs efforts after the passage of the Recovery Act, little is known  about the effectiveness of these efforts.
section_title: Selected Grantees Broadly Defined Green Jobs and Generally Added Green Elements to Existing Training Programs
paragraphs: To identify the potential demand for green jobs in their communities, all  (11 of 11) grantees we interviewed had broadly interpreted Labor’s  green jobs definitional framework to include as green any job that could  be linked, directly or indirectly, to a beneficial environmental outcome.  While Labor created its framework to provide local flexibility, the wide  variation in the types of green jobs obtained by program participants  illustrates just how broadly Labor’s definition can be interpreted and  raises questions about what constitutes a green job—especially in cases  where the job essentially takes the form of a more traditional job (see  table 2). In general, grantees we interviewed considered jobs green if  they could link the job to (1) a green industry, (2) the production or  installation of goods that benefit the environment, (3) the performance of  services that potentially lead to environmental benefits, or (4)  environmentally beneficial work processes. For example, in some cases,  grantees we interviewed considered jobs green because they were linked  to the renewable energy industry, such as solar panel installation or  sales. Grantees considered other jobs green because the goods being  produced benefited the environment, such as the pouring of concrete for  a wind turbine or the installation of energy efficient appliances. In some  cases the green job was service-based, such as an energy auditor or  energy surveyor. Finally, other grantees considered jobs green because  of the environmentally beneficial processes being used, such as applying  paint in an efficient manner or using advanced manufacturing techniques  that reduce waste. Even for jobs where parts of the work have a link to  environmentally beneficial outcomes, workers may only use green skills  or practices for a portion of the time they work. For instance, technicians  trained to install and repair high-efficiency heating, ventilation, and air  conditioning (HVAC) systems may in the course of their work also install  less energy efficient equipment.
All grantees we interviewed said they had worked closely with local  employers to align their training program with the green skills needs of  local employers. All agreed developing effective relationships with  employers was crucial to aligning any training program with available  jobs. Labor’s three Recovery Act green jobs training programs, as well  as the GJIF program, all required applicants to demonstrate how they  would partner with local employers to develop and implement their  training programs. Most (9) grantees told us they had assembled advisory  boards consisting of representatives from local businesses and industry  associations to help inform them about available green jobs and the skills  that would most likely be in demand by local employers. Further, all  grantees said they engaged in ongoing communication with employers to  stay abreast of changes in the local economy and employer needs, and  most (10) made changes to their program curricula or tailored their  training in response to employer input.
Labor’s data show that green jobs training grantees primarily offered  training in the construction and manufacturing industries. Specifically,  nearly half of all participants of the Recovery Act-funded green jobs  training programs received training focused on construction, and  approximately 15 percent received training in manufacturing. Over 5  percent of participants in those programs received training in other  industries that included utilities, transportation, and warehousing.  Grantees in Labor’s newer GJIF program focused even more heavily on  construction—approximately 94 percent of participants were trained in  construction and around 3 percent in manufacturing.
Most grantees (9) we spoke to had infused green elements into existing  training curricula for more traditional skills. However, the extent to which  the training focused on green versus traditional skills varied across  programs and often depended upon the skill level of targeted participants.  Most (7) of the programs we visited generally targeted relatively low- skilled individuals with limited work experience and were designed to  teach participants the foundational skills they would need to pursue a  career in a skilled trade in which green skills and materials can be used.  For example, those programs typically used their green job grant funds to  incorporate green skills into existing construction, carpentry, heating/air- conditioning, plumbing, or electricity programs. The programs generally  involved a mixture of classroom and hands-on training and taught  traditional skills, such as how to read blueprints, use tools, install and  service appliances, and frame buildings. In teaching these skills,  however, instructors also showed students the way the processes or  products used in performing these tasks could lead to environmentally  beneficial outcomes. For example, participants were taught various ways  to weatherize a building to conserve energy, to efficiently operate heavy  machines to save fuel, or to install solar panels as part of a green  construction project.
In contrast, two programs we visited focused more exclusively on short- term green skills training to supplement the existing traditional skills of  relatively higher-skilled unemployed workers. For example, one green  awareness program taught participants to identify ways to perform their  work, such as manufacturing, in a more environmentally beneficial  manner, often by identifying and reducing waste. Another program added  a component to their comprehensive electrical training program to train  unemployed registered electricians how to install and maintain advanced  energy efficient lighting systems. The grantees associated with both of  these programs, as well as other grantees, noted that employer demand  for workers with green skills may sometimes be most effectively met  through short-term training of higher-skilled unemployed workers or  incumbent workers.
section_title: Outcomes of Green Jobs Training Remain Uncertain, with Grantees Citing Implementation Challenges
subsections: section_title: Outcomes of Green Jobs Training Programs Remain Largely Unknown Due to Data Lags
paragraphs: The overall impact of Labor’s green jobs training programs remains  largely uncertain partly because some individuals are still participating in  training and are not expected to have outcomes yet, and because final  outcome data are submitted to Labor approximately 3 months after the  grant period ends. The most recent performance outcome data for the  three Recovery Act-funded and GJIF green jobs grants are as of  December 31, 2012, at which time approximately 60 percent of the  Recovery Act-funded programs had ended and grantees had submitted  final performance outcome data. According to Labor officials, complete  outcome data for the remaining Recovery Act-funded green jobs grantees  will likely not be available until October 2013 because many grants were  extended to June 2013. They also said that final performance outcome  data for the GJIF grant—which is scheduled to end in June 2014—will  likely not be available until October 2014. Our analysis of data reported  by Recovery Act-funded green jobs grantees with final outcome data  shows that these grantees collectively reported enrolling and training  more participants than they had proposed when setting their outcome  targets. However, their placement of program participants into  employment lagged in comparison—these grantees reported placing 55  percent of the projected number of participants into jobs. When final data  become available for the remaining 40 percent of grantees, the final figure  comparing reported employment outcomes to proposed targets may  change.employment outcomes will compare to their projected targets, and  whether the employment outcomes of this program will benefit either from  economic changes or lessons learned since the Recovery Act programs  began.
Moreover, it remains to be seen how GJIF grantees’  Developing a complete and accurate assessment of Labor’s green jobs  training programs is further challenged by the potential unreliability of  certain outcome data—particularly for placement into training-related  employment. In its October 2012 report, Labor’s OIG questioned the  reliability of the Recovery Act green jobs training programs’ employment  and retention outcome data because a significant proportion of sampled  data for employment and retention outcomes were not adequately  supported by grantee documentation. We reviewed the OIG’s data  review process and found it appropriate for assessing reliability and  therefore also consider the data unreliable for evaluating program   While outcome data for the ongoing GJIF program are still  performance.being reported and the OIG did not assess the reliability of this program’s  data, Labor’s method for collecting these data remains largely unchanged  from that used for the Recovery Act-funded green jobs training programs.  Consequently, these outcome data—particularly for placement into  training-related employment—could also be questionable.
Labor officials noted that they have been collecting additional information  on employment outcomes and wages using state unemployment  insurance (UI) wage record data on program participants, and will  continue to do so into early 2015 for the GJIF program.  Results of their  most recent analyses of UI data showed that, of the participants who had  exited at least one of the three Recovery Act-funded green jobs training  programs between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2012, 52 percent had   Similar analyses provided by Labor showed that,  obtained employment.of participants who had exited between October 1, 2010, and September  30, 2011, 83 percent of those who had become employed had retained  their employment for at least 6 months and had average earnings of  around $25,000 for the 6 month period. Results of Labor’s analysis of UI  wage data for participants of the GJIF program shows that 40 percent of  participants who had exited between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2012,  had entered employment. However, the UI data do not capture whether  jobs obtained were training-related for either the Recovery Act-funded or  GJIF programs, so, absent additional relevant information, the extent to  which grantees placed participants into training-related employment may  never be reliably known.
According to Labor officials, once complete, these additional UI wage  data may provide more definitive information on the extent to which  program participants entered employment and will be used by the  department to develop a broader picture of the grant programs’ level of  success in achieving employment outcomes. Specifically, Labor officials  said that while there is not a formal process to study the UI data, program  staff routinely examine these data to identify lessons learned and best  practices that could be applied to future grant programs. Labor officials  said the data could be used to compare the green jobs training programs  against other training programs across the agency, such as those under  WIA, if resources permit. While Labor officials consider the UI data to be  more definitive than the grantee-reported job placement data to measure  overall program outcomes once the grant period ends, they stressed the  importance of having real-time data to monitor grantee performance  during implementation.
While the UI wage record data provide an alternative source of  information on job placement outcomes, due to a 9-month lag time, these  data are of limited usefulness regarding program management.  Specifically, because of the time lag, grantees could not use these data to  monitor their progress toward meeting program goals in real-time.  Further, Labor could not use the data to hold grantees accountable for  meeting grant goals, as all grant periods will have ended before the data  are complete. Consequently, ensuring the reliability of grantee reported  outcome data remains vitally important, particularly for grant programs  whose primary objective is to prepare workers for attaining employment in  a targeted emerging industry.
section_title: Grantees Highlighted Green Jobs Training Benefits and Challenges
paragraphs: The grantees we interviewed were generally positive about Labor’s green  jobs training programs, with most speaking optimistically about the  potential value of the green skills obtained by the program participants.  Most grantees we met with said that they believe there to be a continued  national movement towards lowering energy usage—whether due to  economic, policy, or cultural changes—and all projected that the  demand for workers with green skills credentials will continue to rise. All  (11 of 11) were of the opinion that possessing green skills in addition to  more traditional skills provides workers with an advantage as they seek a  new job or move along a career pathway, and most (10) cited the need  for training programs that provide nationally or industry-recognized green  credentials. Two noted that having multiple credentials was particularly  valuable. Lastly, some (5) grantees mentioned that the benefits of the  green jobs training, like most job training, may not become apparent  immediately, but may often be realized later during the worker’s career,  especially as demand for green skills grows.
However, all grantees noted there have been challenges associated with  developing and implementing Labor’s green jobs training programs. For  example, most (8) of the grantees we interviewed said that the lack of  credible green jobs labor market information had limited their ability to  identify or predict the level of available green jobs or the demand for  green skills in their local area. Although state workforce agencies  received funding to conduct green jobs labor market information studies  under the State Labor Market Information Improvement grants, most  resulting data were issued after many Recovery Act training programs  had already begun. In addition, the BLS surveys were released from  March 2012 through March 2013, after GJIF grantees had submitted their  applications outlining their training programs to Labor. Having access to  the final results of the state labor market information studies could have  provided Recovery Act grantees with additional insights into their state’s  economic activity in the energy efficiency and renewable energy  industries, as well as jobs within those industries when they were  developing their training programs. Similarly, BLS survey results could  have provided GJIF grantees with a national snapshot of establishments  that produce green goods and services and the jobs of workers involved  in green activities, among other information, and may have provided  grantees with additional context for the development and implementation  of their green jobs training programs. Labor officials said the rapidly  evolving nature of the green industries has resulted in multiple changes to  employer green job demand information over the course of the grant  periods, further complicating their attempts to provide labor market  information for this sector.
In addition, most (9) grantees we met with said Labor’s green jobs  training grants did not afford them enough time to both develop local  partnerships and recruit, train, and place program participants. All  grantees said developing partnerships can be especially time-consuming  if such partnerships had not existed prior to the grant award.noted that given how important local partnerships are to developing  successful training programs, training programs that require such  partnerships should have longer grant periods than those afforded by the  Recovery Act and GJIF programs.
Most (9)
Furthermore, most (8) grantees mentioned how developing and  implementing a relatively new type of training, like green skills, can  require additional time in order to fill knowledge gaps among employers.  This may be especially true in light of changing state and local energy  policies. For example, according to the Department of Energy, as of  March 2013, 29 states have established standards aimed at generating a  certain percentage of the state’s energy using renewable sources by a  specified year. Furthermore, many municipalities throughout the country  are requiring that local construction projects adhere to environmentally  friendly requirements. However, most (9) grantees we spoke with said  some employers may not recognize how changing policies will affect their  businesses. In fact, they believe this lack of understanding may be  limiting demand for workers trained in green skills. To address this  problem, one of the grantees we interviewed had developed a 1-day  training program for local business managers to educate them about how  they could benefit from the green skills that participants were obtaining  through the organization’s training program. Most (6) grantees said at  times during the implementation of their green jobs training program, they  were, in effect, attempting to simultaneously drive both supply and  demand for workers with green skills, which took considerable time and  effort.
In addition, although all grantees we interviewed had engaged with  employers who had committed their support for the training curriculum,  they also said this did not always translate into green jobs for program  participants. Above all, most (9) pointed to the slow economic recovery as  the reason their predictions—and those made by employers—regarding  green job growth were not fully realized. For example, one grantee  explained how the local housing market had not recovered as quickly as  anticipated, and as a result, demand for workers with green skills—such  as green construction techniques, weatherization practices, and the  installation of energy efficient appliances—has been sluggish. In addition,  most (10) grantees explained that because green skills are often  intertwined with traditional skills training and the skilled labor industries,  their programs’ participants were negatively affected by the overall poor  economy. For example, most grantees (9) noted how their program  participants, despite their additional layer of green skills training, found  themselves competing with a high number of unemployed workers who  were also seeking to regain employment in more traditional jobs such as  carpentry or electrical work. Most (9) grantees also noted that renewable  energy sectors, such as solar power, have not grown in their regions as  was predicted several years ago. Lastly, most (7) grantees we  interviewed said it is difficult to accurately measure the value of green  skills training in terms of green job placement. In general, they said this is  partly because, unlike jobs in other growing industries, like health care,  there are few distinctly green jobs. One grantee we met with said she  believes the term “green job” is misleading, and complicates program  implementation. This grant official said that funding should be directed  toward supplementing traditional skills training with green skills that can  be used on any job rather than on preparing workers for specific jobs  identified as green.
Based on our interviews with grantees of Labor’s green jobs training  programs, and the descriptions of their experiences implementing those  programs, we identified several lessons learned that may warrant  consideration when implementing similar targeted grant programs for  other emerging industries (see table 3).
section_title: Labor Has Assisted and Monitored Grantees, but Has Provided Limited Guidance on Outcome Documentation Requirements
subsections: section_title: Labor Has Provided Various Forms of Technical Assistance to Support Green Jobs Grantees
paragraphs: Labor has provided all green jobs grantees with technical assistance to  help them implement their grant programs and comply with relevant  federal laws and regulations. For example, Labor officials have hosted  technical assistance webinars on topics such as financial management  and how to engage employers. Labor also maintains a website for each  green jobs training grant program and a green jobs community of practice  on its online platform, Workforce3One. In addition, Labor has published  bimonthly digests for Recovery Act grantees since January 2011 that  highlight new technical assistance materials and other grant-related  information. Finally, Labor has compiled and periodically updated a  technical assistance guide that briefly describes and provides hyperlinks  for its technical assistance resources, including webinar recordings and  promising practices. Several grantees we interviewed (4 of 11) reported  participating in webinars and referring to technical assistance materials  posted to Workforce3One.
In addition, ETA has funded three separate studies to assess the  implementation of selected green jobs programs funded by the Recovery  Act. Specifically, Labor funded a 2-year implementation evaluation that  examined the implementation of the three Recovery Act-funded green  jobs training programs and issued both interim and final reports. ,   Labor also funded an evaluation of the State Labor Market Information  Improvement grants and issued a final report and additional related  products in 2013. Finally, Labor has funded an ongoing impact  evaluation scheduled to be completed in 2016. This study was designed  to test the extent to which selected grantees of one of the four green-jobs  training programs overseen by ETA—Pathways Out of Poverty— improved worker outcomes by imparting skills and training valued in the  labor market.
To support its technical assistance efforts to grantees, Labor entered into  a grant agreement with the National Governors Association, which  together with two partner organizations formed a Technical Assistance  Partnership (TA Partnership). In conjunction with Labor officials, the TA  Partnership has facilitated monthly conference calls for each grant  program so grantees can learn from their peers and receive program- specific technical assistance. The TA Partnership has also compiled and  updated reports that highlight promising practices grantees have  implemented. Finally, the TA Partnership and Labor officials have held  annual grantee conferences, which have covered various topics including  strategies to retain and place program participants and the importance of  nationally recognized credentials. Several (4 of 11) grantees we  interviewed mentioned participating in the monthly conference calls and  annual conferences and said that generally they had been helpful.
While Labor provided guidance and technical assistance on how to  document eligibility for the green jobs training programs, it provided little  guidance on what documentation grantees were expected to maintain  regarding program outcomes, particularly with respect to job placement.
Specifically, while Labor provided guidance on how to report required  performance data into its Recovery Act Database, this guidance does not  specify what documentation, if any, grantees were to maintain for  reported job placements, including those considered training-related. Our  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government provides that  internal control and all transactions and other significant events should be  clearly documented and readily available for examination. However, in  its last green jobs report, the OIG found that nearly a quarter of reported  outcomes were not supported by adequate documentation. One regional  official noted that sub-grantees may not have known what documentation  was required and staff in another office said that in some cases primary  grantees may not have done enough to ensure that the sub-grantees they  were responsible for overseeing understood documentation requirements.
While Labor officials have not issued additional guidance to GJIF  grantees regarding how to document job placement and retention  outcomes, they said they have taken other steps that address the OIG’s  recommendation to improve the quality of grantee reported performance  data and utilize lessons learned from Recovery Act-funded green jobs  training programs for other discretionary grant programs. First, ETA  officials noted that they have formed an internal workgroup focused on  improving the technical assistance provided to ETA’s discretionary  grantees about how to report program outcomes. This group hopes to  issue recommendations in September 2013, and ETA officials believe  these recommendations will help improve grant application instructions,  and help ETA refine their reporting systems, among other things. Second,  ETA officials told us that they had initiated a grant re-engineering project  in August 2012 to identify common grant management challenges and  develop strategies for addressing such challenges. For instance, the  group has discussed ways to improve ETA’s grant solicitation process,  such as by including clearer expectations and benchmarks for  performance in its solicitations for grant applications and by taking steps  to ensure greater comparability of goals across grantees. Labor hopes to  begin implementing the group’s recommendations for new discretionary  grant programs in August 2013.
section_title: Labor Monitored Grantees Using a Risk-Based Approach
paragraphs: ETA monitors most grants, including its green jobs training grants,  through a risk-based strategy that prioritizes monitoring activities based  upon grantees’ assessed risk-levels and availability of resources, among  other factors, and is described in its Core Monitoring Guide. Specifically,  according to officials from all six of ETA’s regional offices, ETA’s federal  project officers monitor grantees as part of their ongoing duties, which  include calling grantees to offer technical assistance. In addition, ETA’s  federal project officers perform quarterly desk reviews, during which they  review financial reports and quarterly performance reports that grantees  are required to submit. For the green jobs training grants, these reports  include information such as the total amount of grant funds spent, the  number of participants who began or completed training, a timeline for  grant activities and deliverables, grantee accomplishments, and technical  assistance needs. During these quarterly reviews, federal project officers  compare grantees’ reported performance outcomes and spending rates to  those goals set by grantees in their grant proposals. Based upon their  review of each grantee’s reported information, federal project officers  enter information about each grantee into Labor’s Grant Electronic  Management System (GEMS), which assesses risk and generates a risk  level for each grantee.
The GEMS assessment of each grantee’s risk level is then used by Labor  to develop its risk-based monitoring strategy, which involves prioritizing  site visits based on grantees’ assessed risk-levels and availability of  resources, among other factors. According to regional officials from all six offices, nearly all green jobs training grantees received at least one  on-site monitoring visit, typically about halfway through the period of  performance. During these site visits, federal project officers assessed  grantees’ management and performance and documented any  noncompliance findings and requirements for corrective action, as  necessary. For example, Labor’s site visit guide includes questions for  federal project officers to consider about financial and performance data  reporting systems and performance outcomes.
As a result of its on-site monitoring activities, Labor officials identified and  required certain grantees to correct a variety of issues concerning the  management of their grants. Many monitoring reports for the Recovery  Act-funded green jobs training grants indicated that grantees were not on  track to meet their performance outcomes. In such cases Labor required  grantees to submit written corrective action plans that described what  strategies they would undertake to increase project outcomes and how  they would ensure that remaining funds would be used in a timely way to  accomplish project objectives.
Labor officials said that grantees have made significant progress toward  attaining their goals for beginning and completing training as a result of  both the grantees’ own efforts and ETA’s technical assistance and  monitoring efforts. These officials also stressed that while ETA holds  grantees accountable to adhering to their grant statements of work,  grantees are not contractually obligated to meet performance outcomes.Unlike contracts or WIA-funded programs, which can impose sanctions  for failing to meet projected targets, the accountability mechanisms for  these green jobs grant programs were more limited. For example, ETA  officials said that if a grantee does not achieve its placement outcomes,  this can affect whether the grantee receives a period of performance  extension for the current grant or, potentially, a future grant from ETA.  Officials said that they had not withdrawn funding from any grantees for  failing to meet performance targets for any of the four green jobs training  programs. However, in some cases ETA officials decided not to grant  extension requests for grantees reporting poor performance. As a result,  some grant funds remained unexpended and will be returned to the  Treasury, as required.
In addition to insufficient progress toward targeted outcomes, the  monitoring reports of the Recovery Act-funded green jobs training  grantees identified other noncompliance findings, including insufficient  monitoring of sub-grantees. For example, a number of monitoring reports  indicated that primary grantees had not sufficiently monitored their sub- grantees. These findings are notable given that such a large percentage  of grantees implemented their programs through a network of sub- grantees. Both GAO and the Department of Justice’s OIG have stressed  the importance of sufficient sub-recipient monitoring to the grant oversight  process. Other noncompliance findings included grantees lacking  adequate documentation to show program participants were eligible for  services or grantees having failed to follow acceptable procurement  processes. According to officials from all six regional offices, federal  project officers did not identify any instances of fraud, waste, or abuse  during their on-site monitoring visits.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The Recovery Act funded multiple, substantial investments in training  programs targeted to a specific emerging industry—energy efficiency and  renewable energy. Most of these programs have already ended or are  currently winding down, although a few of Labor’s continuing programs,  such as YouthBuild, have incorporated many green elements since 2009,  and the Green Job Innovation Fund program is scheduled to remain  active through June of 2014. Despite the sizeable investment in green  jobs, the green jobs training programs have faced a number of  implementation challenges and final outcomes remain uncertain,  particularly regarding placement into green jobs. A number of these  challenges have stemmed from the need to implement the grants quickly  and simultaneously before green jobs had been defined and more had  been learned about the demand for green skills. Others, such as  problems with the reliability of outcome data, can be traced to  management issues that have compromised Labor’s ability to measure  the program’s success, particularly regarding placing participants into  training-related employment. Specifically, because Labor did not establish  clear and timely guidelines for how to document green job placement  outcomes, Labor is not able to assess the extent to which the targeted  green jobs training programs placed participants in employment related to  the training they received.
The challenges for an emerging industry such as energy efficiency and  renewable energy are substantial. Uncertainty and debate still surround  the question of what constitutes a green job. Under Labor’s current  framework, almost any job can be considered green if a link between the  employee’s tasks and environmental benefits can be made. Indeed, most  grantee officials we interviewed said that most green jobs they have  trained participants for are primarily traditional skilled-trades jobs, such as  carpentry or electrical work. Many have been termed “green” because the  worker has been trained to be mindful of energy use and reduce waste, or  has been placed where the worker’s tasks resulted in a product or service  that benefited the environment, such as a light-rail construction site.
Such an approach provides certain benefits within the context of an  emerging industry, in that many of the skills workers obtain can be  transferred to traditional jobs in cases where local demand for green jobs  falls below expectations. It also may serve to raise general worker  awareness about energy efficiency and waste reduction, to the benefit of  the employer or nation. Nonetheless, this emphasis on training that often  takes the form of traditional skills training with an added layer of green  may not fully align with the intent of the targeted training funds.
By funding several evaluations of green jobs training and labor market  information programs, Labor has positioned itself to build upon lessons  learned through implementing these individual programs. A fundamental  consideration is whether it is prudent to implement job training programs  for an emerging industry before more is known about the demand for  skills and workers. Another consideration is whether it would be more or  less effective for federally-funded training programs to focus on providing  valuable green skills and credentials applicable on a wide variety of jobs,  rather than to devote considerable attention to what is defined as a green  job.
Even though Labor is scaling back its own green jobs efforts, energy  efficiency and renewable energy will likely remain a national priority.  Labor has established a green jobs community of practice on its online  platform, Workforce3One, which, if maintained and used, can continue to  facilitate information-sharing among grantees and workforce  professionals regarding what green skills and credentials employers in  their communities value most. In addition, the substantial investment in  energy efficiency and renewable energy made through these grant  programs also provides Labor an opportunity to identify broader lessons  learned about the challenges and benefits associated with offering  targeted training in an emerging industry, which could help inform the  development of training for other emerging industries in the future.  Without the benefit of such lessons learned and a continued focus on  what is needed to address emerging industries, state and local workforce  entities may grapple with similar challenges in the future.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enhance Labor’s ability to implement training programs in emerging  industries, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Labor identify lessons  learned from implementing the green jobs training programs. This could  include:  Identifying challenges and promising strategies associated with  training workers for emerging industries—through both targeted grant  programs and existing programs—and considering ways to improve  such efforts in the future. For example, taking a more measured or  multi-phased approach could allow the time necessary to better  determine demand for an emerging industry and establish the  partnerships needed to properly align training with available jobs.
Taking steps to ensure training programs adequately document  outcome variables, particularly for targeted programs where tracking  training relatedness is of particular interest.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor. Labor  provided a written response (see app. IV). Labor agreed with our  recommendation. Specifically, Labor’s response noted that the  department has already begun assessing lessons learned from the  implementation of its green jobs grants. Labor also cited efforts to compile  lessons learned to inform the design and implementation of future grant  initiatives, including new approaches to capture program outcomes. Labor  agreed that documenting outcomes is important and said it will work to  provide technical assistance to ensure grantees adequately document  outcomes. Finally, Labor noted the department will continue to collect  information on employment outcomes and wages and will analyze these  data once they are complete to provide a more definitive and final picture  of the extent to which former green jobs training participants entered and  retained employment.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Labor,  the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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 staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to determine: (1) what is known about the objectives  and coordination of the Department of Labor’s (Labor) green jobs efforts,  (2) what type of green jobs training grantees provided and how selected  grantees aligned their training to meet employers’ green jobs needs, (3)  what is known about program outcomes and what challenges, if any,  grantees faced in implementing their programs, and (4) what Labor has  done to assist and monitor its green jobs grantees. To address these  objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and  departmental guidance and procedures. We also created a data collection  instrument and two questionnaires to obtain information from Labor  officials. In addition, we analyzed data from Labor and interviewed  selected grantees by phone or in person in five states—California, Illinois,  Louisiana, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania—as well as Labor officials. We  conducted this performance audit from May 2012 through June 2013 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Data Collection for Labor’s Green Jobs Efforts
paragraphs: Our data collection strategy for obtaining information on green jobs efforts  across Labor consisted of two phases.
First, we created a data collection instrument to obtain information on  green jobs efforts across Labor. In the data collection instrument, we  asked offices at Labor to list two separate sets of efforts: (1) efforts  where federal funds were appropriated or allocated specifically for green  jobs activities and (2) efforts where federal funds were not specifically  appropriated or allocated for green jobs activities, but where the office  sought to incorporate green elements into either an existing program or  ongoing activity. We distributed the data collection instrument to 14 of  Labor’s 28 offices: Occupational Safety and Health Administration  (OSHA), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Women’s  Bureau (WB), Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Veterans’  Employment and Training Services (VETS), Office of the Assistant  Secretary for Policy (OASP), Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB),  Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Center for Faith-Based and  Neighborhood Partnerships (CFBNP), Office of Federal Contract  Compliance Programs (OFCCP), Wage and Hour Division (WHD), Office  of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), Office of Disability  Employment Policy (ODEP), and the Office of Public Affairs (OPA). These  14 offices were selected based on the likelihood of their administering a  green jobs effort or program. For example, we did not distribute the data  collection instrument to Labor’s Office of Inspector General, Office of the  Solicitor, or Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
Second, we used the information we collected on the two separate sets of  green jobs efforts in the data collection instruments to inform two follow- up questionnaires. For the first set of green jobs efforts, offices at Labor  initially identified 16 efforts where funds were specifically appropriated or  allocated for green-job related activities. For each of the 16 efforts, we  sent a questionnaire by e-mail. The questionnaire focused on (1) the  goals and objectives of the green jobs efforts, (2) how green jobs were  defined for each of the efforts, (3) whether offices coordinated with others  on these efforts, and (4) funding levels for each of the efforts. We pre- tested the questionnaire with two respondents from OSHA in December  and made revisions. We then sent the questionnaires out on a rolling  basis between January 16 and February 22, 2013. We determined 2 of  the 16 efforts to be out of scope. Of the remaining 14 directly-funded  green jobs efforts across five offices (OSHA, ETA, VETS, ILAB, and  BLS), we received completed questionnaires for 13 and one partially  completed questionnaire by April 3, 2013.  We also identified 3 additional  directly-funded efforts, for a total of 17 efforts.
For the second set of green jobs efforts, offices at Labor initially identified  54 efforts where funds were not specifically appropriated or allocated for  green jobs efforts, but green elements were incorporated into existing  programs or ongoing activities. We identified two additional green efforts  that fall under this category. We sent a brief questionnaire consisting of  two questions by e-mail in an attached Microsoft Word form. The two  questions included in the questionnaire were pre-tested as part of the  more detailed survey mentioned above. All questionnaires were sent on  January 29, 2013, or on February 22, 2013. We determined 10 of the 56  efforts to be out of scope. Of the remaining 46 efforts across six offices  (OSHA, WB, ETA, VETS, ILAB, and CFBNP), we received completed  questionnaires for all 46 efforts by March 21, 2013. Labor later identified 2  additional efforts, for a total of 48 efforts.
Because the majority of Recovery Act funding for green jobs efforts were  directed toward training programs, we focused much of our review on four  grant programs—the three training- focused green jobs training programs  funded by the Recovery Act (Energy Training Partnership grants,  Pathways Out of Poverty grants, and State Energy Sector Partnership  and Training grants) as well as the newer Green Jobs Innovation Fund.  To report on the characteristics of Labor’s 103 green jobs training  grantees, we obtained data from Labor on each training-focused green  jobs grant administered by ETA. Specifically, we obtained information on  the grantee’s location, organizational type, and whether or not the grantee  had sub-grantees.
section_title: Selected Grantees and Analysis of Program Outcome Data
paragraphs: To better understand the type of green jobs training grantees provided,  how grantees aligned their training to meet green jobs needs, and what  challenges, if any, they faced in implementing their programs, we  analyzed data from Labor and interviewed 11 out of the 103 green jobs  training grantees between August 2012 and April 2013. We conducted  site visits in four states and interviewed grantees in two additional states  by phone. We visited grantees in California, Illinois, Minnesota, and  Pennsylvania, and interviewed grantees in Connecticut and Louisiana by  phone. We selected grantees in these states because these states had a  relatively high number of Labor green jobs grant recipients, grantees in  these states received GJIF grants, and the states varied in their  geographic locations. We selected both Recovery Act- and GJIF- funded  green jobs training grantees, but emphasized GJIF-funded grantees since  unlike many of the Recovery Act programs, the GJIF program is still  active.
During each site visit we interviewed Labor’s green jobs training grant  officials, training providers, local employers, and, to the extent possible,  program participants. Similarly, during our phone calls we interviewed  grant officials and in one case employers. During the interviews, we  collected information about the types of green jobs training that were  funded by Labor’s green jobs training grants and the outcomes of  grantees’ programs, including the impact of the training with respect to  green job placement, or otherwise. We specifically asked grantees about  any challenges they may have encountered as they developed and  implemented their program, including whether they experienced  challenges with respect to placing participants into green jobs. In addition,  we collected information on how local employers were involved in the  development of the training programs and the green job opportunities  they were able to offer program participants. We cannot generalize our  findings beyond the interviews we conducted.
To assess the reliability of Labor’s training type and outcome data, we (1)  reviewed existing documentation related to the data sources, including  Labor’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports, (2) electronically tested  the data to identify obvious problems with completeness or accuracy, and  (3) interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the data. We  determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for limited purposes.  For example, we determined that training type data were sufficiently  reliable for purposes of reporting out on the industries for which grantees  most frequently trained participants. We included information about the  extent to which Recovery Act-funded green jobs training grantees  collectively reported meeting their enrollment, training completion, and  entered employment targets for those grantees for which final data were  available as of December 31, 2012. However, based upon the OIG’s  findings, we determined that the outcome data were not sufficiently  reliable to determine the success of the programs. Finally, based upon  the OIG’s findings, we determined that the data on the extent to which  grantees entered training-related employment were not reliable enough to  report, even compared to targeted levels.
section_title: Analysis of Labor’s Technical Assistance and Monitoring Efforts
paragraphs: To describe Labor’s technical assistance efforts, we reviewed technical  assistance guides and material posted to Workforce3One, interviewed  Labor officials, and discussed Labor’s technical assistance with selected  grantees. To describe and assess Labor’s monitoring efforts, we reviewed  its Core Monitoring guide, interviewed Labor officials in Washington, D.C.  and in each of ETA’s six regional offices—Atlanta, Boston, Chicago,  Dallas, Philadelphia, and San Francisco—and obtained and reviewed  copies of Labor’s monitoring reports for green jobs training grantees,  including recipients of Energy Training Partnership, Pathways Out of  Poverty, and State Energy Sector Partnership and Training grants.
section_title: Appendix II: Labor’s Green Jobs Efforts since 2009 for Which Funds Were Appropriated or Allocated, by Focus Area
paragraphs: Energy Training Partnership (ETP) grants   Through the Energy Training Partnership Grants, ETA awarded nearly $100  million to 25 projects. Grantees were to provide training and placement  services in the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries to workers  impacted by national energy and environmental policy, individuals in need of  updated training related to the energy efficiency and renewable energy  industries, and unemployed workers. Grantees were required to partner with  labor organizations, employers and workforce investment boards. Grant  awards ranged from approximately $1.4 to $5 million.
In total, Pathways Out of Poverty grantees received approximately $150  million in Recovery Act funds. The grant aimed to help targeted populations  find pathways out of poverty through employment in energy efficiency and  renewable energy industries. Grants ranged from approximately $2 million to  $8 million and were awarded to eight national nonprofit organizations with local  affiliates and to 30 local public organizations or private nonprofit organizations.
Through SESP, ETA awarded nearly $190 million to state workforce  investment boards in partnership with state workforce agencies. The grants  were designed to provide training, job placement, and related activities that  reflect a comprehensive statewide energy sector strategy including the  governor’s overall workforce vision, state energy policies, and training  activities that lead to employment in targeted industry sectors. ETA made 34  awards that ranged from approximately $2 to $6 million each.
Green Jobs Innovation Fund (GJIF)
The Green Jobs Innovation Fund was authorized under the Workforce  Investment Act to help workers receive job training in green industry sectors  and occupations and access green career pathways. In total, $38 million in  grant funds were awarded to six organizations with networks of local affiliates  to develop green jobs training programs. These programs were required to  incorporate green career pathways either by forging linkages between  Registered Apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs or by integrating  the delivery of technical and basic skills training through community-based  partnerships.
Job Corps is a residential job training program for at-risk youth. The Job Corps  program aims to teach participants the skills they need to secure a meaningful  job, continue their education, and be independent. Job Corps has instituted a  number of measures in recent years to “green” its job training programs and  facilities. Recovery Act funding was used to incorporate “green” training  elements into the automotive, advanced manufacturing, and construction  trades at Job Corps centers nationwide and to pilot three new “green” training  programs at selected Job Corps centers: Solar Panel Installation,  Weatherization, and SmartGrid technology.
Targeted topic training grant in which applicants propose training based on the  occupational safety and health topics chosen by OSHA. Alternative Energy  Industry Hazards and Green Jobs Industry Hazards were included as topics in  FY 2009 and FY 2010, respectively.
Veterans’ Workforce Investment Program  (VWIP)
Reported description  VWIP supports veterans’ employment and training services to help eligible  veterans reintegrate into meaningful employment and to stimulate the  development of effective and targeted service delivery systems. In FYs 2009  and 2010, project proposals received priority consideration if they supported  “Green Energy Jobs” and proposed clear strategies for training and  employment in the renewable energy economy.
Reported description  ETA awarded approximately $48.8 million in State Labor Market Information  Improvement Grants to support the research and analysis of labor market data  to assess economic activity in energy efficiency and renewable energy  industries and identify occupations within those industries. Grant activities  included collecting and disseminating labor market information, enhancing  strategies to connect job seekers to green job banks, and helping ensure that  workers find employment after completing training. ETA awarded 30 grants of  between $763,000 and $4 million.
This is a survey-based program, covering 120,000 business establishments,  which provides a measure of national and state employment in industries that  produce goods or provide services that benefit the environment.
This program provides occupational employment and wage information for  businesses that produce green goods and services.
This is a special survey of business establishments designed to collect data on  establishments’ use of green technologies and practices and the occupations  of workers who spend more than half of their time involved in green  technologies and practices.
Green Career Information staff within the Employment Projections program  produces career information on green jobs including wages, expected job  prospects, what workers do on the job, working conditions, and necessary  education, training, and credentials.
Recovery Act green jobs grantees who were doing green jobs data collection  and training in the states. These Recovery Act funds to  O*NET were for the specific purpose of focusing occupational research and  data collection on green jobs on an accelerated pace.
The Technical Assistance Partnership led by the National Governor’s  Association supported Recovery Act-funded green jobs grantees.
subsections: section_title: Focus Area: Other - Capacity building, administrative expenses, information materials, partnerships
paragraphs: Green Capacity Building Grants (GCBG)
Reported description  In total, ETA awarded $5 million in Recovery Act funds to training programs  already funded by the Department of Labor to build their capacity to provide  training in the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries. ETA  awarded 62 of these grants, with awards ranging from $50,000 to $100,000.
ETA used $5 million of the $500 million authorized for the Recovery Act green  jobs grants for administrative expenses (salaries and expenses). This does not  include any funds that were retained for technical assistance for these grants.  Administrative expenses were in part used to fund three separate evaluations  of Recovery Act green jobs programs: (1) a Labor Market Information  evaluation, (2) a green jobs and health care implementation report, and (3) a  5-year impact evaluation.
This guidance was funded by the Recovery Act and is a guidance document  for R&D workers and employers in the nanotechnology field.
Trilateral Roundtable: The Employment  Dimension of the Transition to a Green  Economy (February 3-4, 2011)
The U.S. Department of Labor, Human Resources and Skills Development  Canada and the European Commission brought together U.S., Canadian, and  European experts representing governments, trade unions, industry, and  nongovernmental organizations to discuss the transition to the green  economy. Discussions focused on defining and measuring green jobs,  establishing effective green jobs partnerships, designing green skills  development and training, ensuring green jobs serve as a pathway out of  poverty, and examining the quality of green jobs, as well as the sustainability  of green jobs investments by governments.
section_title: Appendix III: Labor’s Green Jobs Efforts since 2009 for Which Funds Were Not Appropriated or Allocated, by Focus Area
paragraphs: Reported description  In June 2009, Labor/ETA/OA published a report entitled, “The Greening of  Registered Apprenticeship: An Environmental Scan of the Impact of Green  Jobs on Registered Apprenticeship and Implications for Workforce  Development.”
More recently, as part of the 75th Anniversary of the National Apprenticeship  Act in 2012, OA put out a call to sponsors across the county to collect  Registered Apprenticeship Innovators or Trailblazers. This process identified a  number of innovative programs across the country, including several specific  examples of apprenticeship programs with a focus on green efforts.
Labor officials participated in a technical review of economic research  presented in “What Green Growth Means for Workers and Labour Market  Policies: An Initial Assessment.” Subsequently the paper appeared as Chapter  4 in the 2012 OECD Employment Outlook.
An OSHA website providing green job safety information on specific green  jobs, such as green roofing, waste management, wind energy, recycling,  weatherization, and geothermal industries.
Provided safety information for weatherization jobs in collaboration with  Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and National  Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
OSHA worked with EPA in the publication of this guidance which identifies  critical indoor environmental quality risks and worker assessment protocols,  and provides guidance to address these issues.
Through OSHA and The Joint Commission and Joint Commission Resources  (JCR) Alliance, JCR developed an article that discusses the importance of  adopting sustainable products and practices for cleaning, sanitizing, and  disinfecting healthcare facilities. The article also provides requirements for  selecting green cleaning products (January 2013).
Publishing of a manual: Why Green Is Your Color: A Woman’s Guide to a  Sustainable Career. Designed to assist women with job training and career  development.
A series of teleconferences for workforce practitioners about how to connect  women with green jobs. A fact sheet accompanied each teleconference.
Reported description  In May 2010, the Deputy Director of CFBNP facilitated a partnership between  OSHA’s Cincinnati office and East End Community Services in Dayton, OH – a  Pathways Out of Poverty sub-grantee seeking a training module on safe  handling of asbestos and lead removal as part of a green jobs training  program.
Interagency working groups (with Energy,  Education, and HUD)
Labor officials participated in the October 13-14, 2011 ELSAC meeting in  Paris, France. One topic discussed at the meeting was the OECD’s green jobs  project.
Labor staff articulated labor and employment priorities to the U.S. interagency  for inclusion in U.S. government positions for Rio+20, including for the U.S.  position paper and during negotiations of the Rio outcome document.
The two-day Symposium convened experts from 16 Asia-Pacific Economic  Cooperation member economies and international organizations to discuss  sustainable economic development policies. The event was hosted by the  Department of Education, in partnership with Labor.
US-Brazil Memorandum of Understanding  on Labor Cooperation  (March 20-21, 2012)
U.S. Secretary of Labor and her counterpart from Brazil signed a  Memorandum of Understanding on Labor Cooperation in May 2012. The  memorandum highlights cooperation in the area of green jobs.
The Women’s Bureau Director led a Labor delegation meeting with officials  from Brazil’s Ministry of Environmental Affairs at U.S. EPA about the definition  of green jobs, and initiatives in both countries.
The October 2012 conference working group meetings considered green jobs  in follow-up to the XVII IACML Declaration and Plan of Action adopted by the  ministers of labor of the Americas in November 2011. The Plan of Action  called for specific follow-up actions related to green jobs including, inter-alia,  in-depth exchange of best practices in the region.
DOL officials met with 47 women leaders from Sub-Saharan Africa under the  African Growth and Opportunity Act’s African Women Entrepreneur Program,  sharing best practices, perspectives and strategies to train and employ women  in green jobs.
Reported description  Presentations by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety  and Health to general session, sharing of knowledge, development of  informational products and participation in quarterly meetings.
OSHA and Labor participated in an interagency Recovery through Retrofit  Working Group comprised of over 80 technical staff members from the  Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor;  Environmental Protection Agency; ,and USD that drafted standards for  workers who will be involved in retrofitting homes to make them more energy  efficient. The group met in Denver for a 3 days and a follow-up meeting was  held in Washington D.C. This is the Vice President’s initiative. As a part of the  working group, OSHA provided technical advice and input in the worker  protection aspects of the standards that were drafted.
Reported description  On December 1, 2010, Secretary of Labor and Assistant Secretary for  Employment and Training met with leaders from several national foundations  to discuss significant investments in green jobs programs, as well as effective  strategies that create employment and advancement opportunities for low- income populations in the green job industry.
In 2012, the Director of CFBNP wrote a blog for Fatherhood.gov about an  Employment and Training Administration’s grantee RecycleForce that provides  green jobs to ex-offenders.
Job Train’s “Earth Day Every Day  Campaign”
Held the week of April 19th-23rd, 2010, the campaign was designed “to raise  environmental awareness among students and staff and serve as friendly  reminders to be more energy efficient.”
Labor staff briefed an official from the Chinese Embassy on Labor green jobs  initiatives.
Labor staff briefed the liaison on Labor green jobs efforts.
Small Business Forum: “Green Jobs:  Safety & Health Outlook for Workers and  Small Employers”
A forum on OSHA’s green jobs efforts and workplace hazards associated with  green jobs.
Presentation – “What You Need to Know About the Safe Use of Spray  Polyurethane Foam (SPF) Briefing on Spray Polyurethane Foam”
OSHA Team attended as participating partner and Assistant Secretary spoke.
OSHA co-chaired the topic, “OSH in Green Economy” for the conference on  behalf of the United States. OSHA led the discussions and wrote the  accompanying white paper.
OSHA senior staff made presentations at conference on hazards of green  jobs.
Reported description  OSHA personnel made presentations in Atlanta, GA; Los Angeles, CA;  Philadelphia, PA; and Detroit, MI.
OSHA participated in: The Employment Dimension of the Transition to a  Green Economy”. The event brought together experts from government, trade  unions, industry, and other stakeholders to exchange information, best  practices, and ideas on preparing workers and employers to meet the  increasingly complex skill demands of this transition. OSHA made a  presentation on Green Jobs hazards.
Roundtable has received presentations from CPWR, NIOSH and Department  of Commerce on green jobs within the construction industry.
First Annual Research Exchange on Advancing Patient, Worker and  Environmental Safety and Sustainability in the Health Care Sector. OSHA  presentation on focus on green jobs in relation to the healthcare industry. The  audience was mainly healthcare workers, employers and researchers.
Provides information to employers on practices to help keep workers safe  when working with cleaning chemicals, including green cleaning products. The  posters are available in English, Chinese, Tagalog and Spanish. The poster  includes a section devoted to Green Cleaners.
Topic: Making Green Jobs Good Jobs – We All Want To, So What is OSHA  Doing to Make it Happen?
Discussions at over 30 U.S. locations involving business and community  leaders regarding emerging employment opportunities in green job fields.
Posters, mobile marketing displays, postcards, flash drives.
Reported description  ETA designed the Green jobs CoP to serve as a platform for workforce  professionals and green job thought leaders to discuss and share promising  practices, to create partnerships for green job workforce solutions, and to  leverage Recovery Act investments. Specifically, the Green Jobs CoP was  designed to provide an interactive platform for providing technical assistance  through webinars, discussion boards, blogs and other online resources to  workforce professionals, particularly those at the state and workforce  investment board levels as well as green jobs grantees (including recipients of  upcoming Solicitation for Grant Applications).
Reported description  The YouthBuild program targets out-of-school youth ages 16 to 24 and  provides them with an alternative education pathway to a high school diploma  or GED. Most YouthBuild programs have incorporated green building into their  construction training. As part of this training, participants learn about  environmental issues that affect their communities and how they can provide  leadership in this area.
Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program   The purpose of this program is to expedite the reintegration of homeless  veterans into the labor force. These grants are intended to address two  objectives: to provide services to assist in reintegrating homeless veterans into  meaningful employment within the labor force, and to stimulate the  development of effective service delivery systems that will address the  complex problems facing homeless veterans. The programs’ technical  assistance guide refers to collecting data on green jobs participants.
Web-based training to help women find and succeed in green jobs.
Pilot training projects designed to prepare women to enter high-growth, high- demand green jobs.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Laura Heald, Assistant Director;  Amy Buck, Meredith Moore, and David Perkins made significant  contributions to all phases of the work. Also contributing to this report  were James Bennett, David Chrisinger, Stanley Czerwinski, Beryl Davis,  Andrea Dawson, Peter Del Toro, Alexander Galuten, Kathy Leslie, Sheila  McCoy, Kim McGatlin, Jean McSween, Rhiannon Patterson, Karla  Springer, Vanessa Taylor, and Mark Ward.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Grants to State and Local Governments: An Overview of Funding Levels  and Selected Challenges. GAO-12-1016. Washington, D.C.: September  25, 2012.
Renewable Energy: Federal Agencies Implement Hundreds of Initiatives.  GAO-12-260. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2012.
Workforce Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations between Workforce  Boards and Employers Helped Meet Local Needs. GAO-12-97.  Washington, D.C.: January 19, 2012.
Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and  Better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions. GAO-11-317.  Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2011.
Recovery Act: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant  Recipients Face Challenges Meeting Legislative and Program Goals and  Requirements. GAO-11-379. Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2011.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on  Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could  Promote Efficiencies. GAO-11-92. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2011.
Recovery Act: States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds and Actions Needed  to Address Implementation Challenges and Bolster Accountability.   GAO-10-604. Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2010.
Recovery Act: Funds Continue to Provide Fiscal Relief to States and  Localities, While Accountability and Reporting Challenges Need to Be  Fully Addressed. GAO-09-1016. Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2009.
Employment and Training Program Grants: Evaluating Impact and  Enhancing Monitoring Would Improve Accountability. GAO-08-486.  Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2008.
Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Improve the  Workforce System. GAO-07-1061T. 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: 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: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied  with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address  Employers’ Needs. GAO-05-259. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2005.
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: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to  Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and  Information Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18,  2003.
Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. Washington, D.C.: November 1999.