Registered Apprenticeship Programs: Labor Can Better Use Data to Target Oversight
Published: 2005-08-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Between 2002 and 2012 nearly 850,000 jobs will open in the construction industry; experts predict that there will not be enough skilled workers to fill them. This has heightened concerns about program outcomes and program quality in the nation's apprenticeship system and the U.S. Department of Labor's oversight of it. GAO assessed (1) the extent to which Labor monitors registered apprenticeship programs in the states where it has direct oversight, (2) its oversight activities in states that do their own monitoring, and (3) the outcomes for construction apprentices in programs sponsored by employers and unions in relation to programs sponsored by employers alone.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Labor's monitoring of programs it directly oversees has been limited. We found that in 2004 Labor reviewed only 4 percent of programs in the 23 states where it has direct oversight. According to federal program directors in those states, limited staff constrained their ability to do more reviews. Also, Labor has focused in recent years on registering new programs and recruiting apprentices. Although Labor collects much data about the programs it oversees, it has not employed its database to generate information indicative of program performance, such as completion rates, that might allow it to be more efficient in its oversight. Labor does not regularly review council-monitored states or collect data from them that would allow for a national picture of apprenticeships. Labor is responsible for conducting formal reviews of the 27 states and the District of Columbia that established apprenticeship councils to monitor their own apprenticeship programs; but, according to directors in these states, the reviews have been infrequent and not necessarily useful. While Labor collects only aggregate data on apprentices from these states, we identified 10 states with large numbers of apprentices that were willing and capable of providing GAO data on apprentices by occupation as well as some information on completion rates, completion times, and wages. Data in Labor's apprenticeship database and from council-monitored states show that completion rates and wages for construction apprentices in programs sponsored jointly by employers and unions were higher than those for programs sponsored by employers alone. We found that completion rates for apprentices in programs jointly sponsored by unions and employers were 47 percent on average compared with 30 percent in programs sponsored solely by employers. Completion rates declined under both types of sponsorship for the period we examined, but Labor, as part of its oversight, does not track reasons for noncompletion, making it difficult to determine what lies behind this trend.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Between 2002 and 2012 an estimated 850,000 jobs will open in the  construction industry, but experts predict that there will not be enough  skilled workers to fill them. The National Registered Apprenticeships  System, administered by the Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer  and Labor Services (OATELS) within the Department of Labor, has an  important role in the development of this skilled workforce. With a budget  of $21 million, OATELS promulgates standards to safeguard the welfare of  apprentices and registers apprenticeship programs that meet those  standards, which include requirements for related instruction, on-the-job  training, and equal employment opportunity for apprentices. OATELS also  oversees apprenticeship programs to ensure that they provide quality  training for apprentices, as many as 480,000 of whom may be enrolled at  any one time. Labor, through OATELS, directly registers and oversees  programs in 23 states. It has granted 27 other states, the District of  Columbia, and 3 territories authority to register and oversee their own  programs, and ensures programs comply with federal standards and meet  additional state standards. In these states, referred to here as council- monitored states, OATELS reviews the activities of the apprenticeship  councils that are responsible for ensuring programs in their state comply  with federal labor standards and equal opportunity protections. While  Labor and apprenticeship councils provide oversight, recent studies have  shown that a significant number of construction apprentices are not  completing their programs and that construction programs sponsored by  employers without union participation have lower completion rates and  wages for apprentices. In addition, some have raised concerns that the  failure to complete programs could be indicative of poor program quality.  The anticipated shortage of skilled construction workers has heightened  concerns about the relationship between program outcomes and program  quality, the prospect for expanding the supply of skilled workers through  apprenticeships, and Labor’s oversight of these programs.
In view of these concerns, you asked us to review the extent of federal  oversight of apprenticeship programs in general and compare  apprenticeship outcomes in the construction industry by type of program  sponsorship. Specifically, we assessed (1) the extent to which the  U.S. Department of Labor monitors the operations and outcomes of  registered apprenticeship programs in the states where it has direct  oversight, (2) its oversight activities for council-monitored states, and   (3) the outcomes for construction apprentices in programs sponsored  jointly by employers and unions in relation to those sponsored by  employers alone.
To obtain national information on Labor’s monitoring and oversight  activities, we surveyed all state directors of apprenticeship training  programs through electronic questionnaires posted on the World Wide  Web. We excluded the three territories—Guam, Puerto Rico, and the  Virgin Islands—from our analyses because the few programs they had  were atypical. We also visited four states, both federal (Texas) and  council-monitored (California, New York, and Washington), that had large  numbers of construction apprentices (from about 52,000 to 6,500). In these  states, we talked to knowledgeable officials, private-sector experts and  stakeholders, including employer and labor union sponsors of  apprenticeship programs. In some cases, we visited apprentice training  facilities. To determine completion rates, times to completion, and wage  rates for apprentices, we analyzed data in Labor’s apprenticeship database  for the fiscal years 1994 through 2004. In calculating completion rates, we  constructed five cohorts based on when apprentices enrolled in a  program—1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, or 1998—and established their  completion status 6 years after they enrolled. These analyses included data  on programs in 23 states where Labor has direct oversight and programs in  8 council-monitored states. In addition, we obtained comparable data on  construction programs from 10 council-monitored states that have large  numbers of construction apprentices and were able to provide this  information. The 41 states for which we had some type of data accounted  for an estimated 92 percent of all construction apprentices. We also  interviewed Labor officials and other knowledgeable parties. (See app. I.)
We conducted our work between August of 2004 and July 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Although apprenticeship programs in the United States are largely private  systems that are paid for largely by program sponsors, the National  Apprenticeship Act of 1937 authorizes and directs the Secretary of Labor  to formulate and promote labor standards that safeguard the welfare of  apprentices. The responsibility for formulating and promoting these  standards resides with OATELS. OATELS had a staff of about 176 full-time  equivalencies and an annual appropriation of about $21 million in 2004. In  addition, because of budgetary constraints, OATELS officials do not  expect resources to increase. At the national level, OATELS can register  and deregister apprenticeship programs (i.e., give or take away federal  recognition), issue nationally recognized, portable certificates to  individuals who have completed registered programs, plan appropriate  outreach activities targeted to attract women and minorities, and promote  new apprenticeship programs to meet workforce needs. In addition to this  national role, OATELS directly oversees individual apprenticeship  programs in 23 states. In these states, the director for the state’s  apprenticeship system and other program staff are federal employees who  monitor individual apprenticeship programs for quality and their provision  of equal opportunity.
Labor can give authority to states to oversee their own apprenticeship  programs if the state meets certain requirements. Labor has given this  authority to 27 states, the District of Columbia, and three territories. In  these states, which we refer to as council-monitored, the federal  government is not responsible for monitoring individual apprenticeship  programs; instead, the state is. It does so through state apprenticeship  councils. OATELS does, however, conduct two types of reviews to  determine how well the state fulfills its responsibilities. Quality reviews  determine, in part, conformance with prescribed federal requirements  concerning state apprenticeship laws, state council composition, and  program registration, cancellation and deregistration provisions. Equal  Employment Opportunity (EEO) reviews assess the conformity of state  EEO plans, affirmative action activities, record-keeping procedures, and  other activities with federal EEO regulations. In addition to these reviews,  OATELS may also provide state agencies with federal staff to assist in day- to-day operations.
The number and type of construction apprenticeship programs are  distributed differently across federally- and council-monitored states.  Council-monitored states not only have more programs, but these  programs are more likely to be jointly sponsored by employers and unions  than sponsored by employers alone. On average, a construction  apprenticeship program in federally-monitored states trains about   17 apprentices and in council-monitored states trains about 20. Beyond  this average, it’s important to note that there can be great variation among  programs, with some having over 400 participants and others 1 or 2.   Figure 1 identifies states where programs are federally- and council- monitored.
Both the federal and council-monitored states collect data on the  individual programs they oversee. Labor maintains a large database called  the Registered Apprenticeship Information System (RAIS) and collects  information about individual programs, apprentices, and sponsors for  apprenticeships in the 23 states where it has direct oversight and in   8 council-monitored states that have chosen to report into this system. The  other council-monitored states, 20 in total, maintain their own data and  collect various pieces of information on apprenticeship systems. Labor  does collect aggregate data on apprentices and programs from these  states.
In all states, individuals can enter the construction trades without  completing formal apprenticeship programs, but many construction  workers, particularly those working in highly skilled occupations that  require extensive training, such as the electrical, carpentry, and plumbing  trades, receive their training though registered apprenticeship programs.  To complete their programs, apprentices must meet requirements for on- the-job training and classroom instruction that must meet the minimum  standards for the trade as recognized by Labor or the state apprenticeship  council. Programs in some trades, for example, commercial electricity,  may take 5 years to complete but programs to train laborers may only take  a year. Beginning apprentices’ wages generally start at about 40 percent of  the wage of someone certified in a particular trade and rise to about   90 percent of that wage near completion. Apprentices’ contracts with their  program sponsors specify a schedule of wage increases.
section_title: Labor’s Monitoring of Registered Apprenticeship Programs Is Limited
paragraphs: Although OATELS is responsible for overseeing thousands of  apprenticeship programs in the states where it has direct oversight, it  reviews few of these programs each year. Also, while its apprenticeship  database collects much information about individual participants and  programs, Labor hasn’t used these data to systematically generate program  performance indicators such as completion rates. As a result, it lacks  information that would allow it to identify poorly performing programs  and adjust its oversight accordingly. Furthermore, despite many technical  upgrades, Labor’s database hasn’t provided information that meets the  needs of federal apprenticeship directors or the needs of other  stakeholders.
subsections: section_title: Few Federal Staff Are Engaged in Monitoring the Programs That Labor Directly Oversees
paragraphs: OATELS has reviewed very few of the apprenticeship programs in the  states where it has direct oversight. Federal apprenticeship directors in  these states reported they conducted 379 quality reviews in 2004, covering  only about 4 percent of the programs under their watch. These reviews are  done to determine, for example, whether sponsors have provided related  instruction and on-the-job training hours in accordance with the standards  for the program and whether wages reflected actual time in the program.  The number of reviews conducted varied across states. On average,   22 quality reviews per state were conducted, but one director reported  conducting as many as 67 reviews while another reported conducting no  reviews at all. In addition, programs in council-monitored states were  almost twice as likely as programs in federally-monitored states to have  been reviewed within 3 years. (See fig. 2.) Several federal officials said  over the past several years they had placed primary emphasis on  registering new programs and recruiting more apprentices, particularly in  nontraditional areas such as childcare and health. In addition, they told us  it was not possible to do more reviews in part because of limited staff.
In addition to having fewer reviews, apprenticeships in federally- monitored states had fewer staff dedicated to monitoring activities than  council-monitored states. In 2004, each staff person in a federally  monitored state was responsible, on average, for about 2,000 apprentices,  according to federal program directors; to put this in context, case loads  of monitors in federally-monitored states were almost twice as large as  those in council-monitored states. In federally-monitored states, on  average there were about 2.5 staff to monitor programs, less than one-third  the average in council-monitored states. Labor’s practice of assigning  federal staff to monitor programs in 18 of the council-monitored states  rather than to programs in federally-monitored states compounded  differences in staff resources. Directors in council-monitored states  reported that at least two federal employees, on average, monitored  programs in their jurisdiction. As important as the number of staff, is how  they spent their time. About a half of the staff in federally-monitored states  spent 40 percent or more of their time in the field performing monitoring,  oversight, and providing related technical assistance, according to federal  program directors whereas one-half of the staff in council-monitored  states spent about 70 percent or more in the field.
section_title: While Labor Collects Much Information about Apprenticeship Programs, It Does Not Systematically Use Data to Focus Its Oversight
paragraphs: Although Labor collects information to compute completion rates and  track participants who do not complete programs in the time expected, it  does not use these data to focus its oversight efforts on programs with  poor performance. During a site visit in a federally-monitored state, a  monitor showed us how she computed cancellation rates by hand for  apprentices in programs that she felt were not doing an adequate job of  training apprentices to see if her hypotheses were correct. In the absence  of performance information, directors and staff in federally-monitored  states reported that a variety of factors dictated which programs to review.  These included size, newness, location, date of the last review, sponsor’s  cooperativeness, as well as the location of staff resources.
In addition to not using program data to target reviews, Labor has not  collected and consistently entered into its database information about why  apprentices cancel out of programs, although its database was designed to  include such information and having it could help target reviews. Officials  told us that voluntary cancellation or transfers to another program were at  times associated with program quality, while other nonvoluntary reasons,  such as illness or military service, were not. Currently, recording the  reason for an apprentice’s cancellation in the database is an optional field.  We found that no reason was recorded for 60 percent of the cancellations  and the remaining 40 percent did not effectively capture the reasons for  leaving. Of the 18 reasons entered, the most common reasons were  “Unknown,” “Voluntarily Quit,” “Unsatisfactory Performance,”  “Discharged/Released,” and “Cancelled with the Occupation,” some of  which did not provide useful information to target reviews. Also, other  entries were close duplicates of one another, such as “left for related  employment” and “left for other employment.”
Labor also treats as optional data entries for its equal employment  opportunity reviews: including the date of the last review, compliance  status, status of corrective actions, and other information that would  improve the efficiency of managing reviews. As a result, such data were  available for about 5 percent of programs in Labor’s database in fiscal year  2004. Without this information, it is more difficult to determine when  programs had their last EEO review and to readily identify programs with  known problems.
section_title: Labor’s Data Base Does Not Meet the Needs of Apprenticeship Directors and Other Stakeholders
paragraphs: Despite many technical upgrades, Labor’s database hasn’t provided  information that meets the needs of its federal directors or the needs of  other stakeholders. While acknowledging that Labor’s database has been  updated and improved, 22 out of the 23 directors of apprenticeship  programs and their monitoring staff have expressed dissatisfaction with  the present system. One complained of “daily” changes to the data fields  without being informed of “why or when they will change.” Expressing the  desire to select and sort data on any field and generate unique reports in  context with all available data, another concluded, “In short, we need a lot  of flexibility with database reports that we don’t have at this time.” Many  federal apprenticeship directors made recommendations for improving the  database. In general, what state directors wanted most was a system that  was stable, user friendly, and that would allow them to produce  customized reports to better oversee the apprenticeship programs in their  states. The list below shows those potential improvements endorsed by  more than half of the state apprenticeship directors:  Increase the timeliness of notifications to state and regional offices for  changes to RAIS (e.g., provide for more frequent communication),   (22 of 23 surveyed states).
Simplify instruction and procedures for producing reports   (18 of 23 surveyed states).
Allow production of customized state and regional reports by type of  industry (18 of 23 surveyed states).
Allow production of customized state and regional reports by sponsor type  (17 of 23) and occupational type (17 of 23 surveyed states).  Improve the frequency of RAIS training (17 of 23 surveyed states).  Improve the quality of RAIS training (16 of 23 surveyed states).
Simplify instructions and procedures for inputting and updating data   (16 of 23 surveyed states).  Increase available coding options to explain why apprentices leave the  program (14 of 23 surveyed states).
Allow production of customized state and regional reports by sex of  apprentice and race of apprentice (14 of 23 surveyed states).
OATELS has recently purchased software that enables users to extract  data from Labor’s databases in order to produce customized reports.  Purchased originally for the Secretary of Labor’s use, Labor Information  Technology and OATELS officials said they foresaw the software’s utility  for many programs and therefore decided to purchase licenses for  apprenticeship field staff. However, OATELS has not necessarily taken  steps to ensure field staff will be able to make optimal use of the software.  About half the directors in federally-monitored states did not know the  software was available or what it was. Although the software was  demonstrated at a directors’ meeting in 2004, several couldn’t recall the  demonstration and others were not in attendance. Moreover, two of the  directors lacked basic hardware, such as a high-speed cable needed to  support the software. In fact, one director told us he was working from his  home because his office didn’t have such basics as a cable hook-up for his  computer. Even if such obstacles are surmounted, the new system may not  meet the staffs’ data needs. Two directors who were already attempting to  use the software reported to us that it did not allow them to select  information using factors that would be most useful to them, such as state- level data on apprenticeship programs. In addition, Labor could or would  not supply us with formal documentation describing its plans to  implement the software or its vision of how the software would be used by  its staff. Labor also reported that because of budget constraints and the  easy use of the new software, it had no plans to provide training. Without  such plans, Labor’s commitment to the full implementation and future  financing of the program is questionable.
section_title: Labor Has Reviewed Council-Monitored States Infrequently, Provided Little Feedback, and Not Collected Data That Would Allow for a National Picture of Apprenticeships
paragraphs: Labor has infrequently reviewed states to which it has delegated oversight  responsibility. This includes both quality reviews and EEO reviews to  assure that these states are in compliance with federal rules for overseeing  apprenticeship programs and also adhering to equal employment  opportunity requirements. Moreover, states that have been reviewed in  recent years reported that they had little utility for helping them manage  their programs, in part, because of the little feedback they received. In  terms of providing information to Congress and others, Labor does not  collect from these states information that is readily available on  apprenticeships by occupation or industry, even for occupations where  shortages of skilled workers are anticipated.
subsections: section_title: Labor Has Reviewed Council-Monitored States Infrequently in Recent Years
paragraphs: Agency records indicate that Labor conducted only three quality and EEO  reviews of council-monitored states in calendar years 2002 and 2003, and  none in 2004 but has scheduled seven for 2005. State apprenticeship  directors confirmed that reviews are infrequent. Twelve of the 27 directors  in council-monitored states reported that OATELS had conducted reviews  of their programs less frequently than once every 3 years and several  responded that reviews had not taken place in the last 9 to 12 years. An  additional five directors reported their states had never been reviewed or  that they were unaware if such reviews had taken place. The remaining   10 reported reviews took place in their states at least once every 3 years.  (See fig. 3.) While neither statute nor regulation specifies the frequency  with which OATELS should conduct such reviews, they constitute an  important mechanism for ensuring that state laws conform to  requirements necessary for Labor’s recognition of a state’s registered  apprenticeship program.
section_title: Officials in Most Council- Monitored States Reported Reviews Were Not Very Useful, in Part Because of Limited Feedback
paragraphs: State directors reported that the Quality Reviews and the EEO Reviews  had limited utility for helping them manage their programs. For example,  only about half of them reported that the quality reviews were at least  moderately useful for helping them determine their compliance with  federal regulation. (See fig. 4.) Results were similar for the EEO reviews.  (See fig. 5.) For example, slightly less than half of state directors reported  that EEO reviews were at least moderately useful in helping them  determine their compliance with federal EEO regulations. Some directors  said reviews would be more useful if they focused on reviewing program- related activities in the state. Eight of the directors suggested that Labor  focus more on state and local conditions and the performance of  apprenticeship programs instead of focusing only on whether council- monitored states comply with federal standards. For example, one  director reported the feedback he received on EEO activities was  unrelated to the racial composition of the state. Also, some suggested  reviews could provide opportunities for federal officials to provide  assistance and share knowledge about strategies that other states have  found useful.
While directors had a number of ideas for improving the usefulness of  quality and EEO reviews, many noted that Labor provided limited or no  feedback as part of the review process. For example, one said his state  agency received a brief letter from Labor stating only that the state was in  compliance with federal regulations. Two others said their agencies  received no documentation that a review had in fact been conducted, even  though in one of these cases the state had made requests for the review  findings. Officials in one state said feedback from their last review was  positive and indicated no problems, but a few years later, OATELS took  steps to get their state apprenticeship council derecognized with no prior  notice or subsequent review.
section_title: Labor Has Not Collected Data That Would Allow for a National Picture of Apprenticeships
paragraphs: Labor collects aggregate counts of apprentices for most council-monitored  states and has not developed strategies to collect more detailed  information that would allow for a description of apprenticeships at the  national level, even for those where shortages of skilled workers are  anticipated. Of the 28 council-monitored states, 20 have their own data  system and do not report data to Labor’s apprenticeship database. These  20 states represent about 68 percent of the nation’s apprentices. Labor and  council-monitored states have differing opinions about why there are  separate data systems. Labor officials told us that, as they were developing  their database, they conducted outreach to council-monitored states.  Officials from these states say otherwise. They also said that participating  in Labor’s database would be an onerous process or that Labor’s system  did not meet their state’s information needs and, therefore, they had  invested the time and money to develop their own systems. Because many  of these systems are not compatible with Labor’s, the agency collects only  total counts of apprentices and programs from these 20 states, which it  uses for its official reports.
While incompatible data systems may suggest that it would be difficult or  costly to obtain more than aggregate counts, in collecting data for this  report, we found many of the council-monitored states—including 10 with  large numbers of apprentices—were both willing and capable of providing  us data on apprentices by industry and by occupation as well as  information on completion rates, completion times, and some wage data  for occupations that we had specified. In fact, one state reported that it  had designed its apprenticeship database to collect all information  required by Labor’s database and had offered to report these data to Labor  electronically—but Labor had not taken steps to accept this offer.  Nevertheless, as one director pointed out, having a unified data picture is  central to OATELS’ oversight as well as its promotional activities and, as  many agree, such a system would promote the health of the registered  apprenticeship system.
section_title: Construction Apprenticeship Completion Rates and Wages Vary by Program Sponsor
paragraphs: Construction apprentices in programs sponsored jointly by employers and  unions (joint programs) generally completed at a higher rate and in greater  numbers than those enrolled in programs sponsored by employers alone  (non-joint programs). More importantly, despite growth in construction  program enrollment, there has been a decline over time in completion  rates for both types of programs. Completion rates declined from   59 percent for apprentices enrolling in 1994 to 37 percent for apprentices  enrolling in 1998. It is difficult to know what factors underlie this trend  because, as noted earlier, Labor does not systematically record  information about why apprentices leave programs. Apprentices who  completed programs within 6 years tended to finish earlier than expected.  In addition, wages for joint apprentices were generally higher at the start  and upon completion of their programs. Data received from 10 council- monitored states that do not report to Labor’s database generally mirrored  these findings.
subsections: section_title: Nearly Half of Apprentices in Joint Programs Completed Their Apprenticeships Compared with about a Third in Non- joint Programs
paragraphs: Completion rates were generally higher for apprentices in joint programs  than for those in non-joint programs. Of the apprentices who entered  programs between 1994 and 1998, about 47 percent of apprentices in joint  programs and 30 percent of apprentices in non-joint programs completed  their apprenticeships by 2004. For five consecutive classes (1994-1998) of  apprentices in Labor’s database, completion rates calculated after 6 years,  were higher for joint programs, as shown in figure 6. The data we received  from 10 additional states that do not report into Labor’s database showed  similar trends, with joint apprentices having higher completion rates. For  complete data that we received from these 10 states, see appendix II.
For the programs in Labor’s database, this higher completion rate for joint  apprenticeship programs was true for all but 1 of the 15 largest individual  trades which collectively account for 93 percent of active apprentices in  construction. (See fig. 7.) It should be noted that among the trades,  themselves, there were substantial variations in completion rates, often  due to the nature of work environment and other constraints, according to  federal and state officials. For example, roofing programs, which have low  completion rates, face unpredictable weather and seasonal work flows.
Officials said that joint programs have higher completion rates because  they are more established and better funded. For some joint programs,  these additional resources stem in part from union members paying a  small portion of their paychecks into a general training fund that is used to  help defray some of the training costs for apprentices. In addition, they  suggested that, because unions tend to have a network of affiliates spread  across an area, they are more likely to find work for participating  apprentices in other areas when work is slow in a particular area. Local  union chapters often have portability agreements with one another other,  which help to facilitate such transfers. Officials also said these programs  provide mentoring and other social supports.
section_title: While Enrollments Increased, Completion Rates Declined in General for the Period Examined
paragraphs: Enrollments in construction apprenticeship programs more than doubled  from 1994 to 1998, increasing from 20,670 construction apprentices to  47,487. (See fig. 8.) Meanwhile, completion rates declined from 59 percent  for the class of 1994 to 37 percent for the class of 1998. This decline for  these cohorts held for both joint and non-joint programs. (See fig. 9.)  Completion rates for joint apprentices dropped from nearly 63 percent to  42 percent, and from 46 percent to 26 percent for non-joint apprentices.  This trend was consistent across different occupations as well, with most  experiencing declines.
Because Labor does not systematically record the explanations that  apprentices offer for canceling out of programs, it is difficult to determine  what may lie behind this downward trend. Labor suggested that some  apprentices may choose to acquire just enough training to make them  marketable in the construction industry in lieu of completing a program  and achieving journey status. While we cannot confirm this hypothesis, we  did find that those apprentices who did cancel chose to do so after  receiving over a year of training. Joint apprentices cancelled after   92 weeks on average and non-joint apprentices cancelled after 85 weeks  on average. Other reasons offered included a decline in work ethic, the  emphasis placed by high schools on preparing students for college and the  corresponding under-emphasis on preparation for the trades, and a lack of  work in the construction industry. We cannot verify the extent to which  unemployment played a role influencing outcomes, but, according to the  Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for construction  increased overall from 6.2 percent to 8.4 percent between 2000 to 2004,  despite the predictions of future worker shortages in construction.
section_title: Apprentices in Both Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs Tended to Complete Their Programs Early
paragraphs: Those apprentices who completed construction programs within 6 years  tended to finish earlier than they were expected to, with apprentices in  non-joint programs finishing a bit sooner than their joint counterparts. On  average, joint apprentices completed their programs 12 weeks early and  non-joint apprentices completed 35 weeks early. This trend was similar  across the largest trades in terms of enrollment as shown in table 1 below.  This may be due to the willingness of program sponsors to grant  apprentices credit for previous work or classroom experience that was  directly related to their apprenticeship requirements.
section_title: Starting Wages and Wages upon Completion in Joint Construction Programs Were Higher on Average than Those for Apprentices in Non-joint Construction Programs
paragraphs: Apprentices in joint construction programs were paid higher wages at the  start of their apprenticeships and were scheduled to receive higher wages  upon completion of their programs. In 2004, the first year in which Labor  collected information on starting wages, apprentices in joint programs  earned $12.28 per hour while non-joint apprentices earned $9.90 at the  start of their apprenticeships. These differences in wages were more  pronounced at the journey level, that is, upon completion, with  apprentices in joint programs scheduled to earn journey-level wages of  $24.19 as compared with $17.85 for those in non-joint programs. As shown  in figure 10, joint apprentices generally earned higher wages across the   15 trades with the largest numbers of construction apprentices. There  were three trades—carpenter, structural steel worker, and cement  mason—for which starting wages were higher for non-joint apprentices.  For journey-level wages there was only one trade for which wages were  higher for non-joint apprentices—that of millwright. Officials we spoke  with commonly attributed this distinction in wages to the bargaining  process associated with joint programs. Data from the 10 additional states  (outside Labor’s database) whose data we examined showed a similar  pattern—with joint apprentices earning higher wages. (See app. II.)
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: As a small program with finite resources tasked with an important  mission, it is incumbent on Labor’s Apprenticeship Office to leverage the  tools at its disposal to carry out its oversight, all the more so during a  period of tight budgets. Labor’s responsibility for assuring that registered  apprenticeship programs meet appropriate standards is no small charge,  given the thousands of programs in operation today. In terms of the  programs it directly monitors, Labor has not made optimal use of the  information it collects to target resources. The failure to do so limits the  agency’s ability to target its oversight activities to address and remedy  areas where there may be significant need, particularly the construction  trades where completion rates are declining. Underscoring this point is the  fact that apprenticeship directors in federally-monitored states cannot get  easy access to the data in the form of customized reports. Irrespective of  distinctions between apprentice outcomes for joint and non-joint  programs, without better use of its data, Labor is still not in a position to  assess programs on their individual merits. Given the relatively limited  number of staff available for field visits, by not using the program data it  has, Labor misses opportunities to more efficiently use its staff.
With regard to states with council-monitored apprenticeship programs,  Labor’s oversight practices do not necessarily ensure that those states’  activities comply with federal standards for oversight because the  Apprenticeship Office has only sporadically assessed their operations.  Moreover, to the extent that the federal office does not provide useful  feedback to the states when it does conduct reviews, states may lose  opportunities to improve programs under their jurisdiction. Finally,  because Labor does not seek much information beyond aggregate  numbers from a majority of council-monitored states, policymakers lose  an opportunity to gain perspective and insight for aligning workforce  training with national needs, specifically for key occupations within  construction that are likely to be faced with shortages of skilled workers  in the near future.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Labor take steps to (1) better utilize  information in Labor’s database, such as indicators of program  performance, for management oversight, particularly for apprenticeship  programs in occupations with expected future labor shortages; (2) develop  a cost-effective strategy for collecting data from council-monitored states;  (3) conduct Labor’s reviews of apprenticeship activities in states that  regulate their own programs on a regular basis to ensure that state  activities are in accord with Labor’s requirements for recognition of  apprenticeship programs; and (4) offer substantive feedback to states from  its reviews.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor for review  and comment. Labor provided written comments on the draft report that  are reproduced in appendix V. Labor concurred with our  recommendations and has already taken steps to obtain data on  apprenticeships from some council-monitored states and to regularly  review activities in these states. Further, Labor stated it plans to use the  data to better target the performance of the apprenticeship programs that   OATELS directly registers and oversees, and to provide improved  feedback to states that register and oversee their own apprenticeship  programs.
Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further  distribution of this report until 14 days after the date of this letter. At that  time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor and other  interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon  request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me on 512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov if you or your staff have  any questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which the  U.S. Department of Labor monitors the operations and outcomes of  registered apprenticeship programs in the states where it has direct  oversight, (2) its oversight activities for council-monitored states, and   (3) outcomes for construction apprentices in programs sponsored jointly  by employers and unions in relation to those sponsored by employers  alone.
To carry out these objectives, we surveyed OATELS officials in charge of  apprenticeship programs in 23 federally monitored states and state  apprenticeship directors in 28 states, including the District of Columbia,  where state apprenticeship councils oversee programs. We used two  surveys—one for federally- monitored states and one for council- monitored states—to obtain national information on OATELS’ monitoring  and oversight activities. We focused only on apprentices in the civilian  sector of the economy and did not include military or prison-based  programs. We asked questions designed to determine the amount of  resources devoted to oversight, the frequency of oversight activities, and  the outcomes from these activities. The surveys were conducted using  self-administered electronic questionnaires posted on the World Wide  Web. We pretested our surveys with a total of five federally-monitored and  council-monitored state officials to determine if the surveys were  understandable and if the information was feasible to collect. We then  refined the questionnaire as appropriate. We sent e-mail notifications to all  federally-monitored and council-monitored state officials on January 5,  2005. We then sent each potential respondent a unique password and  username by e-mail on January 13, 2005, to ensure that only members of  the target population could participate in the appropriate survey. To  encourage respondents to complete the surveys, we sent e-mail messages  to prompt each nonrespondent approximately 1½ weeks after the initial   e-mail message and a final e-mail reminder on February 7, 2005. We also  called nonrespondents to encourage them to complete the survey. We  closed the surveys on March 18, 2005. We received responses from all   23 federally-monitored and 27 of 28 council-monitored state officials  including the District of Columbia. (See table 2.) Copies of the surveys are  provided in appendices III and IV.
To examine the outcomes for apprentices in the construction industry, we  analyzed data from Labor’s RAIS database. In calculating completion rates,  we constructed five cohorts based on when they enrolled in their  programs; we had cohorts for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.  We then considered the status of these cohorts 6 years after they enrolled  to determine if they had completed, cancelled, or remained in training. Our  analysis of wage data focused on data collected in fiscal year 2004, the first  full year that Labor began collecting such information. We assessed the  reliability of the RAIS database by reviewing relevant information on the  database, interviewing relevant OATELS officials, and conducting our own  testing of the database. This testing included examining the completeness  of the data, performing data reliability checks, and assessing the internal  controls of the data. Based on this information and our analysis, we  determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of  our report.
Because Labor’s RAIS database does not contain data from all states, we  supplemented these data with data from 10 council-monitored states that  do not report to this database. We selected these states based on the  number of apprentices they had and whether their data were in an  electronic format that would facilitate extracting and sending these data to  us. We submitted a data request that asked for selected information on  enrollment, completion, and wages for the 10 largest apprenticeship  occupations to these states and received data from all of them. We  determined that these data were reliable for our purposes. We did not  combine these data with those from RAIS; we used them as a means of  comparison.
To learn more about the oversight of apprenticeship programs and their  outcomes, we conducted site visits to four states—New York, California,  Texas, and Washington. These states represented both federal and council- monitored states and had large numbers (from a high of about 52,000 to a  low of 6,500) of construction apprentices. On these site visits, we  interviewed relevant federal and state officials along with joint and non- joint program sponsors. We also toured facilities in two states where  certain apprentices are trained.
Throughout the engagement we interviewed relevant Labor officials and  experts that have researched apprenticeship programs and reviewed  relevant past reports and evaluations of these programs. We conducted  our review from August 2004 through July 2005 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken to Complete, and Wages for Construction Apprentices in Council-Monitored States
subsections: section_title: Non- joint
paragraphs: California reported no structural steel worker non-joint programs.
New York reported no completers for pipe fitter, structural steel worker, painter, and operating  engineer non-joint programs.
Oregon reported no non-joint apprenticeship programs are registered in the state.
section_title: Appendix III: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in Federally- Monitored States
subsections: section_title: Q4. During FFY 2004, how many full-time equivalency (FTE) apprenticeship training representative, field, and other nonadministrative staff were employed by the state to monitor and oversee apprenticeship programs in your state?
paragraphs: 22 Q6. In your opinion, would the following updates or modifications improve Registered Apprenticeship Information System’s (RAIS)  usefulness to your state?  23 Q8. Did your state use WIA Governor’s 15% State Set-Aside funds to support new and/or established apprenticeship programs in   FFY 2004?  23 Q9. Were WIA State Set-Aside funds used to support new and/or established apprenticeship programs in your state in FFY 2004   to do any of the following?
Q11. For which of the following reasons did your state not use WIA Set-Aside Funds to support apprenticeship programs in FFY 2004?  17 17 Q13. Were WIA funding sources other than State Set-Aside Funds used in your state to support new and/or established apprenticeship  programs in FFY 2004?
Q14. Other than State Set-Aside Funds, which of the following WIA funding sources were used to support new and/or established  apprenticeship programs in FFY 2004?
Q16. Did your state establish linkages between WIA state unit and the state apprenticeship unit in FFY 2004 for any of the following  purposes?  22 Q19. How often does your unit conduct formalized Quality Reviews of individual apprenticeship programs that address on-the-job  training, related instruction, and/or program operations in your state?
More than  twice a year  Q21.  Approximately how many Quality Reviews did your unit conduct in FFY 2004? ( Click in the box and then enter up to a 4-digit  whole number only. )
Little or no extent ( Please  specify in Question 24. )
Little or no extent ( Please  specify in Question 24. )
Q26. How often does your unit conduct formalized Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Reviews of individual apprenticeship  programs?
More than  twice a year  Q28.  Approximately how many EEO Reviews did your unit conduct in FFY 2004? ( Click in the box and then enter up to a 4-digit whole  number only. )  23 Q29. To what extent, if at all, did your state find the FFY 2004 EEO Reviews useful for the following purposes?
Little or no  extent ( Please  specify in  Question 31. )
Q33. Did your state have procedures or policies for recording complaints filed in FFY 2004 that were elevated to the level of the state  or regional OATELS office?
Q34a2.  Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate  Q34b1.  How many complaints concerned termination in FFY 2004?
Q34b2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate  Q34c1.  How many complaints concerned discrimination in FFY 2004?
Q34c2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate   18  Q34d1.  How many complaints concerned wages in FFY 2004?
Q34d2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate   Q34e1.  How many complaints concerned related instruction in FFY 2004?
Q34e2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate   18  Q34f1.  How many complaints concerned on-the-job training in FFY 2004?
Q34f2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate   Q34g1.  How many complaints concerned other issues in FFY 2004?
section_title: Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in Council- Monitored States
subsections: section_title: Q5. Do you have a BAT agency in your state?
paragraphs: 27 Q6.  During state FY 2004, how many full-time equivalency (FTE) apprenticeship training staff were employed by the BAT agency in  your state to monitor and oversee apprenticeship programs in your state?
Q8. How often does your OATELS conduct SAC 29/29 Review (Review of Labor Standards for Registration of Apprenticeship  Programs) in your state?
More than  twice a year  Q10. To what extent did your state find OATELS’ most recent SAC 29/29 Review (Review of Labor Standards for Registration of  Apprenticeship Programs) useful for the following purposes in your state?
Q15. How often does OATELS conduct SAC 29/30 Review (Review of Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training)  in your state?
More than  twice a year  Q17. To what extent, if at all, did your state find OATELS’ most recent SAC 29/30 Review (Equal Employment Opportunity in  Apprenticeship and Training) useful for the following purposes?
Q21. Does your state presently use OATELS’ Registered Apprenticeship Information System (RAIS) to register apprentices and to  track apprentice and program information?  27  Q23. Does you state plan or intend to use RAIS to register apprentices and track apprenticeship and program information in the   future ?
Q26. Did your state use the WIA Governor’s 15% State Set-Aside funds to support new and/or established apprenticeship programs in  state FY 2004?
Q27. Were WIA State Set-Aside funds used to support new and/or established apprenticeship programs in your state in state FY 2004  to do any of the following?  5  Q29. For which of the following reasons did your state not use WIA Set-Aside Funds to support apprenticeship programs in state FY  2004?  22 Q31. Were WIA funding sources other than State Set-Aside Funds used in your state to support new and/or established apprenticeship  programs in state FY 2004?
Q32. Other than State Set-Aside Funds, which of the following WIA funding sources were used to support new and/or established  apprenticeship programs in state FY 2004?  3  Q34. Did your state establish linkages between WIA and the state apprenticeship unit in state FY 2004 for any of the following  purposes?
Q37. Did your state have a mechanism for conducting formalized reviews of apprenticeship programs that address on-the-job training,  related instruction, and/or program operations in state FY 2004?
Q38. Which of the following components -- on-the-job training, related instruction, and/or program operations -- were included in these  reviews?  25 Q40. How often does your state conduct formalized reviews of individual apprenticeship programs that address on-the-job training,  related instruction, and/or program operations?
Q42. Does your state have a mechanism for conducting formalized Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) reviews of individual  apprenticeship programs?
Q43. How often does your state conduct formalized Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) reviews of individual apprenticeship  programs?
More than  twice a year  Q45. Did your state have procedures or policies for recording complaints filed in state FY 2004 that were elevated to the level of state  apprenticeship agencies?
Q46a1.  In your state, how many total complaints were referred to state officials in state FY 2004?
Q46a2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate   22  Q46b1.  How many complaints concerned termination in state FY 2004?
Q46b2.  Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate   Q46c1.  How many complaints concerned discrimination in state FY 2004?
Q46c2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate   Q46d1.  How many complaints concerned wages in state FY 2004?
Q46d2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate   Q46e1.  How many complaints concerned related instruction in state FY 2004?
Q46e2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate   Q46f1.  How many complaints concerned on-the-job training in state FY 2004?
Q46f2.  Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate  22  Q46g1.  How many complaints concerned other issues in state FY 2004?
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Patrick DiBattista, Assistant Director, Scott Heacock, Linda W. Stokes, and  Kathleen D. White managed all aspects of the assignment. The following  individuals made significant contributions to this report:   Susan Bernstein, Jessica Botsford, Richard Burkard, Cathy Hurley, and  Jean McSween.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but  Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650.  Washington, D.C.: June 2005.
Public Community Colleges and Technical Schools: Most Schools Use  Both Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development.  GAO-05-4. Washington, D.C.: October 2004.
Registered Apprenticeships: Labor Could Do More to Expand to Other  Occupations. GAO-01-940. Washington, D.C.: September 2001.
Youth Training. PEMD-94-32R. Washington, D.C.: September 1994.
Apprenticeship Training: Administration, Use, and Equal Opportunity.  HRD-92-43. Washington, D.C.: March 1992.