Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient
Published: 2004-12-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 includes provisions intended to ensure that people with disabilities have equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from the programs and activities offered through one-stop career centers (one-stops). But little is known, and questions have been raised, about how well this system is working for persons with disabilities. This report examines (1) what the Department of Labor (Labor), states, and the one-stops have done to facilitate comprehensive access to the WIA one-stop system; (2) the various relationships that the one-stops have established with disability-related agencies to provide services to persons with disabilities; (3) what Labor has done to ensure that the one-stops are meeting the comprehensive access requirements, and the factors that have affected efforts to ensure compliance; and (4) what is known about the employment outcomes of persons with disabilities who use the one-stop system.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Labor has awarded grants to facilitate comprehensive access, which is defined in this report as providing people with disabilities the equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from the programs, activities, and/or employment offered by the WIA one-stop system. States and local areas have used these grants for a range of efforts, including increasing staff capacity to provide services to persons with disabilities. During our site visits to 18 local areas and one-stops, we found that officials at most sites were working to implement architectural access requirements. Moreover, local areas and one-stops varied in the degree to which they had addressed other areas of comprehensive access. For example, a few sites had only begun to acquire assistive technology devices; other sites had assistive technology and had trained some or all of their staff in how to use it. One-stops have established various relationships to provide services to persons with disabilities. The structure of the one-stops' relationships with state vocational rehabilitation (VR) programs varied, as did the extent to which they have formed relationships with disability-related service providers other than VR. A few local areas and one-stops primarily formed relationships with VR, while others had also formed relationships with community-based disability organizations. Although Labor has taken several actions to ensure comprehensive access to one-stops, these efforts may not be sufficient. Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Civil Rights Center (CRC), and Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) have issued guidance and assistance on the regulatory requirements. CRC also has conducted on-site reviews at local areas and one-stops in two large metropolitan areas in two states. In both areas, CRC identified instances of noncompliance with these requirements. Reviews in two other states will be completed during fiscal year 2005, but Labor has not developed a long-range plan for how it will carry out its oversight and enforcement responsibilities beyond 2005. To date, CRC's monitoring and enforcement efforts account for less than 2 percent of the total number of local areas and one-stops nationwide. The CRC Director stated that she had not yet determined whether CRC would conduct additional on-site reviews. The information that Labor publishes on employment outcomes for people with disabilities is limited for a variety of reasons. Disclosure about disability status is voluntary, thus the information about employment outcomes may be misleading. The collection of information on the employment outcomes of WIA participants is limited to those who are registered for services, and one-stops are not required to register customers who participate in self-service or informational activities. The performance measurement system may result in customers being denied services because local areas may be reluctant to provide WIA-funded services to job seekers who may be less likely to find employment.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The ability to engage in productive employment is the cornerstone of the  American workforce system, and the programs and services provided  through the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 are intended for  persons with and without disabilities. WIA unifies previously fragmented  employment and training programs and creates a more comprehensive  workforce investment system by bringing together over $15 billion of  federally funded programs into a single service delivery system—the one- stop center system. WIA requires about 17 programs to provide services  through the one-stop system, including the Department of Education’s  Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program, which provides services to  eligible individuals with disabilities. The Department of Labor (Labor) is  responsible for providing general leadership and guidance to the one-stop  system. Within Labor, the Civil Rights Center (CRC) and the Employment  and Training Administration (ETA) each have a role in ensuring that  people with disabilities can participate in and benefit from the programs  and services provided through the one-stop system. Additionally, Labor’s  Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) has a role in increasing  employment opportunities for people with disabilities.
Section 188 of WIA, among other things, prohibits discrimination on the  basis of disability with respect to the programs funded or otherwise  financially assisted under WIA. Labor’s regulations implementing WIA  Section 188 include specific provisions intended to ensure that persons  with mobility, mental health, hearing, vision, speech, cognitive, or other  impairments have equal opportunity to participate in or be employed by  the programs and activities offered through the one-stop system. These  regulations encompass provisions that oblige recipients of WIA financial  assistance to take positive actions to provide people with disabilities the  equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from the programs,  activities, and/or employment offered by the one-stop system. For the  purpose of this report, we use the term comprehensive access when  referring to these requirements. These requirements include actions such  as providing architectural access, program accessibility, reasonable  accommodations or modifications, service delivery in integrated settings,  and effective communication. Labor’s regulations also include provisions  prohibiting covered recipients of federal financial assistance from taking  discriminatory actions that exclude people with disabilities from  participating in the programs, activities, or employment offered by the  one-stop career center system, and provisions requiring recipients to  establish the administrative structure that CRC views as necessary in  order to ensure nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for members of  all groups protected by Section 188 of WIA.
Despite the requirements contained in these provisions, little is known  about how well the one-stop system is working for people with disabilities.  As a result, you asked us to examine (1) what Labor, states, and the one- stop centers have done to facilitate comprehensive access to the WIA one- stop system; (2) the various relationships that the one-stop centers have  established with disability-related agencies to provide services to persons  with disabilities; (3) what Labor has done to ensure that the one-stop  centers are meeting the comprehensive access requirements, and the  factors that have affected efforts to ensure compliance; and (4) what is  known about the employment outcomes of persons with disabilities who  use the one-stop system.
To address these issues, we interviewed officials at Labor, and we  conducted document reviews of Labor’s Work Incentive Grants (WIG) and  the Disability Program Navigator (Navigator) grants. The Work Incentive  Grants are designed to enhance the employment and career advancement  of people with disabilities. The Navigator grants are intended to increase  employment and self-sufficiency of people with disabilities. We used  information obtained from these grants to help select which states, local  areas, and full-service one-stop career centers (one-stops) to visit. We  selected these states on the basis of geographical dispersion, as well as  whether they received one or more types of grants, if any. We conducted  site visits to six states—California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi,  New Mexico, and Tennessee. We visited three local workforce investment  areas (local areas) and associated one-stop centers in each of these states.  After discussions with WIA officials within the six states, we selected the  local areas and one-stop centers to obtain both urban and suburban  centers and, where possible, one-stop centers in small towns or rural  areas. Figure 1 shows the 18 locations we visited. At the local workforce  investment area and one-stop centers, we interviewed WIA officials, one- stop staff, and officials from organizations representing people with  disabilities about issues and practices for providing programs, services,  and activities to individuals with disabilities. Additionally, we reviewed  relevant documents from Labor, as well as the WIA statute and regulations  and other relevant statutory and regulatory provisions.
While WIA and its implementing regulations require that persons with  disabilities can use the one-stop facilities and participate in and benefit  from the system’s programs, activities, and services, we did not assess the  extent to which the approximately 1,900 one-stops, located in about   600 local areas nationwide, meet the comprehensive access requirements.  Determining whether a particular site meets architectural access  standards is fairly straightforward, but this is not the case with  determining whether other comprehensive access requirements have been  met. While many of the elements of these requirements, such as provision  of assistive technology devices, are described in existing regulations, the  regulations allow one-stops to use a variety of methods to meet the  requirements. Because there is no one list of methods that covers all paths  to comprehensive accessibility, it is a complex and resource-intensive task  to determine whether the comprehensive access requirements have been  met. Determining whether a single one-stop center is in compliance with  these requirements requires both on-site observations of the facility and its  equipment, as well as extensive document reviews and interviews with  one-stop staff. Determining whether one-stops are in compliance with  comprehensive access requirements on a nationwide basis was beyond the  scope of this study.
We conducted our work between September 2003 and October 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 requires states and localities to  bring together about 17 federally funded employment and training services  into a single system—the one-stop system. Funded through four federal  agencies, these programs, also known as the mandatory partner programs  (or more simply, mandatory partners), are to provide services through a  statewide network of one-stop career centers. (See table 1.)
Three of these 17 programs, which were created and funded by Title I of  WIA to provide services to adults, dislocated workers, and youth, replace  those previously funded under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA).  The Department of Labor distributes funds for these three programs to the  states, and the states in turn distribute funds to designated local areas  within the states based on formulas prescribed by WIA. WIA also  established performance measures that states and localities must track in  order to demonstrate the programs’ effectiveness. The performance  measures primarily focus on entered employment rates, employment  retention rates, earnings changes, and credential rates.
WIA programs provide for three levels of services for adults and dislocated  workers: core, intensive, and training. Core services include basic services  such as job search and labor market information. These activities may be  self-service or may require some staff assistance. Intensive services  include such activities as comprehensive assessment and case  management, which require greater staff involvement. Training services  include such activities as occupational skills training or on-the-job  training.
WIA requires the establishment of workforce investment boards at the  state level and in local areas. The state boards are responsible for a  number of functions, including the development and improvement of the  statewide workforce investment system and the designation of local areas.  The state board assists in the preparation of the state plan and the annual  report, both of which are submitted to the Secretary of Labor. The local  workforce investment board sets policy for the local area, and its specific  duties include developing a comprehensive 5-year local plan and selecting  one-stop operators.
WIA contains a number of provisions to ensure that individuals with  disabilities are adequately served. The most important of these provisions  is Section 188, which prohibits any program or activity funded or  otherwise financially assisted in whole or part under WIA from  discriminating on the basis of disability as well as race, color, religion, sex,  national origin, age, or political affiliation or belief.
To help states and local areas implement the Section 188 provisions, the  Department of Labor issued interim final regulations in November 1999.  These regulations, which have the force of law, describe requirements for  the recipients of financial assistance under WIA Title I, and for programs  and activities operated by the one-stop partners as part of the one-stop  system. The regulations also identify how recipients will be held  accountable for ensuring nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for  individuals with disabilities.
The WIA Section 188 regulations contain certain provisions that prohibit  recipients of WIA financial assistance from taking certain discriminatory  actions. For example, recipients must not:    provide significant assistance to a person or entity that discriminates in  providing any aid, benefits, services, or training to registrants,  applicants, or participants;    make a selection for the site or location of a facility that has a  impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out  individuals with disabilities, unless such criteria are necessary for the  provision of the aid, benefit, service, training, program, or activity  being offered.
Further, WIA Section 188 regulations contain provisions that oblige  recipients to take certain positive actions to provide comprehensive  access to WIA programs and services. For example, these regulations  require some recipients of WIA financial assistance—those who are in  facilities or parts of facilities that are constructed or altered on their  behalf—to make those facilities architecturally accessible. In contrast,  recipients of WIA financial assistance who are in unaltered existing  facilities are not necessarily required to make those facilities  architecturally accessible, but are subject to other requirements for  accessibility, known as program access, which specify that a recipient  must operate each service, program, or activity so that it, when viewed in  its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with  disabilities. Recipients of WIA financial assistance do not have to make  each of their existing facilities or every part of an existing facility  accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, and can satisfy  the accessibility requirements for existing facilities by redesigning  equipment, reassigning services to accessible buildings, assigning aides to  beneficiaries, and providing home visits, among other options.
As part of providing comprehensive access, WIA Section 188 regulations  require recipients of WIA financial assistance to take a number of  additional actions when administering their programs or activities. Under  these provisions, recipients must:  take steps to ensure that communications with individuals with  disabilities are as effective as communications with others, including  providing appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary;    provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with  disabilities who are applicants, registrants, or eligible  applicants/registrants for, or participants in, employees of, or  applicants for, employment with their programs and activities, unless  providing the accommodation would cause undue hardship;    make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures,  unless making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature  of the service, program, or activity;    provide the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of  qualified individuals with disabilities; and  take appropriate steps, such as advertising and marketing, to ensure  that they are providing universal access to their WIA financially  assisted programs and activities.
The regulations also require recipients of WIA financial assistance to  establish an administrative structure so that they ensure compliance with  WIA’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions. Each recipient,  except small recipients and service providers, must designate an equal  opportunity (EO) officer who is responsible for ensuring that the recipient  complies with Section 188 regulations. EO officers’ responsibilities  include:    monitoring and investigating activities by recipients of WIA financial  assistance to ensure that they do not violate WIA Section 188  regulations,  reviewing written policies to ensure that those policies are  nondiscriminatory, and    developing and publishing the recipient’s procedures for processing  discrimination complaints.
Recipients of WIA financial assistance must also provide written  notification that they do not discriminate on the basis of disability or on  other prohibited bases. This notification must be placed prominently in the  facility and distributed through other means. In addition, recipients of WIA  financial assistance must collect and maintain data necessary to allow  Labor to determine whether the recipient is complying with Section 188 of  WIA and the implementing regulations. The Director of Labor’s Civil  Rights Center determines which data are necessary.
Under WIA Section 188 regulations, the governor of each state is  responsible for, among other things:    oversight of all WIA financially assisted state programs,   ensuring compliance with WIA Section 188 and its implementing  regulations, and    negotiating with recipients to secure voluntary compliance when  noncompliance is found.
Moreover, both the Governor and the recipient of WIA financial assistance  are liable for all violations of Section 188 unless the Governor has, among  other things, established, signed, and adhered to an MOA. The MOA must  be in writing and describe how the state programs and recipients of WIA  financial assistance have satisfied the requirements of certain regulatory  provisions, including those regarding people with disabilities.
In addition, the Director of Labor’s CRC has oversight responsibilities  under the Section 188 regulations, which include:  reviewing the activities of a governor, including the adequacy of the  MOA, and  investigating and resolving complaints alleging violations of Section  188.
As part of its oversight responsibility, CRC, with assistance from ETA and  ODEP, issued a compliance checklist on July 25, 2003, to ensure  nondiscrimination and equal opportunity to persons with disabilities  participating in WIA programs and activities. This checklist, officially  known as the WIA Section 188 Disability Checklist, identifies the  regulations implementing Section 188 of WIA, including portions of the  regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and covers  requirements applicable to local area grant recipients regarding the  operation of their programs and activities. The checklist is based on the  elements required by the MOA and includes lists of questions for each  element of the MOA. For some of the elements, the questions are followed  by examples of concrete actions that can be taken to ensure compliance  with Section 188 requirements. The appendix to the Checklist also  includes additional examples of policies, procedures, and other steps that  local area grant recipients can take to ensure compliance with Section 188.
section_title: Labor, Local Areas, and One-Stops Have Made Various Efforts and Degrees of Progress in Facilitating Access
paragraphs: Labor has awarded grants to facilitate comprehensive access to  employment and training programs for persons with disabilities, and local  areas and one-stop centers have also made numerous efforts, as well as  various degrees of progress, in facilitating comprehensive access to their  programs and services. Specifically, ETA has awarded over 100 grants to  states and local entities for disability-related activities, such as enhancing  comprehensive access to the one-stops. States and local areas have used  these grants for a range of efforts, including assessing one-stop  architectural accessibility, acquiring assistive technology devices, and  increasing staff capacity to provide services to persons with disabilities.
subsections: section_title: Federal Grants Have Provided Funding to Facilitate One-Stop Accessibility
paragraphs: Between 2000 and 2004, ETA awarded state and local entities a total of  approximately $65 million in competitive Work Incentive Grants in order  to enhance one-stops’ capacity to provide programs and services to  persons with disabilities, which included improving one-stop accessibility.  ETA awarded 113 grants in four rounds between 2000 and 2004. (See table  2.)
On the basis of its experience administering the first two rounds of grants,  ETA has targeted its specific grant objectives—and, therefore, its  resources—to meet the emerging needs that states, local areas, and one- stops have identified in providing programs and services to persons with  disabilities. ETA’s objectives for the early rounds of grants were relatively  broad, and as a result, grantees were permitted to use the funds to  undertake a range of activities, including:    assessing one-stops’ architectural accessibility;   acquiring assistive technology devices;    conducting outreach to the disability community; linking and coordinating with community disability-related agencies,  such as community mental health agencies and independent living  centers;   training existing one-stop staff on disability issues; and    making available staff who have the experience, knowledge, and skills  necessary to address a broad range of disability-related issues.
By the third round of grants, in 2003, ETA had begun to focus its priorities  more narrowly—though not exclusively—on increasing the capacity of  one-stop staff to provide services to persons with disabilities. According to  the third round grant notice, previous grantees had found that building  staff capacity was successful in improving overall service delivery in their  one-stops. ETA officials said that although they believe that building staff  capacity will enhance one-stops’ progress toward making their services  available to persons with disabilities, they recognize that some one-stops  may also still need to address other issues, such as meeting the  architectural access requirements. In addition to targeting their grant  objectives, ETA officials said they plan to change the process by which  they award grants. ETA used a competitive process to award all four  rounds of grants, and as a result, according to ETA officials, some states or  local areas that needed grants may not have received them. ETA officials  said they plan to use a different process in the future, which would allow  them to target funding toward specific areas, such as states that did not  receive grants in the first four rounds and/or states where they would like  to intensify current grant activities.
ETA, in conjunction with the Social Security Administration (SSA), which  administers employment support programs for its disability beneficiaries,  has provided approximately $24 million to fund a demonstration project  focused on the establishment and training of one-stop Disability Program  Navigators. The Navigators’ role is to address the needs of persons with  disabilities seeking to use the one-stop system. Since July 2003, Navigator  grants have been awarded in a total of 17 states. At the time of our  review, this initiative had led to 221 Disability Program Navigators  working in or with one-stops in those states. As designed by ETA and SSA,  in collaboration with ODEP, Navigators are to provide expertise and serve  as a resource to one-stops as well as persons with disabilities. ETA and  SSA expected that Navigators would, in part, carry out many of the same  types of accessibility-related activities that were funded under the initial  Work Incentive Grants. The third and fourth rounds of the Work Incentive  Grants have led to the hiring of staff who can perform functions similar to  those of a Navigator. At the time of our review, 122 Navigator-like staff had  been established through the Work Incentive Grants. Eleven of the sites  we visited had either Disability Program Navigators or Work Incentive  Grant Navigators. Some of the Navigators we interviewed told us they had  the following job responsibilities:    providing disability-related staff training;   helping staff locate resources for specific persons with disabilities,  such as accommodations or services in the community;    developing relationships with disability-related service providers, such  as VR and other community agencies; and    helping to ensure the accessibility of the one-stop, such as by  conducting accessibility assessments or developing accessibility plans.
section_title: Local Areas and One-Stops Have Made Efforts to Facilitate Access to the One-Stops’ Services, but Progress Has Varied
paragraphs: During our site visits, we found that local areas and one-stop centers had  made various efforts and degrees of progress in facilitating comprehensive  access to the one-stops’ programs and services. Specifically, we found the  following:  Architectural access. Our site visits showed that most local area and  one-stop officials were working to implement architectural access  standards, which are required by the WIA Section 188 regulations. Nearly  all of the sites we visited had undergone at least one architectural  accessibility assessment within the last few years, and the assessments  were typically conducted by VR or other disability-related agencies. Our  review of these assessments showed that there were often considerable  differences in the degree of architectural access that the locations had  achieved. For example, some of the sites had either no or few problems  with regard to architectural access. Other locations had a number of  access-related problems, including those related to parking, ramps, and  doors, as well as restrooms and signage. Some officials at these locations  told us they had made at least some changes to improve architectural  access. For example, some changes included:    adding or changing accessible parking spaces to meet requirements;  installing signage or changing existing signage to meet requirements;    building a new exterior ramp because the existing one did not meet  architectural access requirements; and   installing electric door openers.
Auxiliary aids and services. Many of the one-stops we visited had  acquired auxiliary aids and services, such as assistive technology and  materials in alternate formats, which the WIA Section 188 regulations  require that one-stops provide to persons with disabilities when necessary.  Auxiliary aids and services include a range of devices, equipment, and  services that provide effective communication for persons with various  types of impairments. According to ETA, the auxiliary aids and services  requirement covers any method of communication, including verbal,  written, computer-based, or telephone communications. Assistive  technology refers to products or equipment that can be used to help  people with disabilities perform their major life functions. Some types of  assistive technology can be used to make existing information technology,  including computers and telephones, available to persons with disabilities.  Alternate formats can, for instance, make written or visual materials  available to persons with visual impairments or make oral information  available to persons with hearing impairments. Table 3 describes selected  types of auxiliary aids and services that were available in some of the one- stops we visited.
At the time of our site visits, a few one-stops had either recently installed  assistive technology for the first time or were still in the process of  acquiring it. However, other sites had assistive technology, and some or all  of the staff had already received training in how to use it. Some of these  sites offered a range of devices, which could assist many types of  impairments. Given the wide variety of devices available, some local areas  and one-stops targeted their resources, at least initially, toward items that  might be used frequently. For example, one local area—working with an  agency that had assistive technology expertise—collected data on the  types of impairments that were most prevalent among potential customers  and then used these data to determine which devices to purchase first. In  addition, a couple of officials said that their one-stops had some materials,  such as basic orientation materials, routinely available in Braille or large- print formats. Some officials told us that they did not have any of their  materials routinely available in alternate formats, although they would  provide these to customers upon request. In some cases, officials said that  they could rapidly provide customers with certain types of alternate  formats, such as Braille, large print, computer diskette, or compact disk,  through the use of their assistive technology or computers.
Reasonable accommodations. Some officials and staff we interviewed  said they try to make reasonable accommodations for persons with  disabilities. Reasonable accommodations, which are required by the WIA  Section 188 regulations, enable persons with disabilities to receive aid,  benefits, services, or training equal to that provided to persons without  disabilities. For example, a number of officials and staff mentioned that  although they did not have a qualified American Sign Language interpreter  on-site at their one-stops, they have obtained an interpreter upon a  customer’s request. However, during our site visits, we also found that  local area and one-stops’ policies and procedures for providing reasonable  accommodations varied. For example, officials from a few local areas and  one-stops said they referred to their state workforce agency’s or their local  government’s policies for guidance on this issue. A few officials said that  they had developed their own local accommodation policies or  procedures, or planned to do so. For example, one local area developed  written policies and procedures that provided information on how  customers should request an accommodation, which staff could assist in  providing a reasonable accommodation, and which staff were responsible  for determining if the one-stop is able to provide the accommodation. In  addition, some officials told us that when they have received  accommodation requests, they have not maintained records on the types  of accommodations requested or whether the one-stop provided these  accommodations. However, in at least one of the local areas we visited,  the local equal opportunity officer—who addressed all accommodation  requests—said that he maintained records on this information.
Integrated settings. During our site visits, we found variation in  viewpoints regarding the practice of automatically referring persons with  disabilities to VR for services. Even though agencies such as VR could  provide services to persons with disabilities, the WIA Section 188  regulations require that one-stops allow persons with disabilities the  opportunity to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate  to meet their needs. An integrated setting is one that enables persons with  disabilities to interact with persons without disabilities. Although a  referral to VR may be appropriate for some individuals, automatically  referring all persons with disabilities to VR does not allow for the  opportunity to receive services along with persons without disabilities.  Moreover, an automatic referral to VR does not provide customers with an  individualized assessment of their abilities and needs.
Some local area and one-stop officials we interviewed acknowledged that  automatic referrals to VR did occur in the past. However, a number of  officials and staff understood that this practice is not appropriate, or said  that it is not currently occurring in their one-stops. Some of these officials  and staff said that services for persons with disabilities are determined on  a case-by-case basis and that unless these individuals want or indicate that  they need VR services, they are not referred to VR. Some WIA officials, as  well as a few VR officials and others who have provided staff training on  disability issues, explained that one-stop staff have been trained not to  automatically refer persons with disabilities to VR. For example, staff were  trained not to stereotype persons with disabilities or assume that they  need VR services, or were trained to provide these customers with a  choice regarding which services they use.
However, during our site visits, officials in two local areas told us that they  currently found it preferable or necessary to automatically refer persons  with disabilities to VR. Officials from one local area stated that while a  disability-related agency advised them that one-stop staff should not be  automatically referring persons with disabilities to VR, they took  exception to this guidance. The local area officials explained that it would  be irresponsible of them not to fully utilize the expertise of the only  mandatory disability partner in the WIA system. Officials from another  local area said that although their long-term goal is to train one-stop staff  to work directly with persons with disabilities, they believe that their one- stop staff are currently referring these customers to VR. Additionally,  some WIA, VR, and disability-related agency officials also expressed  concerns that trying to meet performance standards could provide an  incentive for one-stops to automatically refer persons with disabilities to  VR, only serve those with the least severe disabilities, or not serve them at  all. Some officials explained that it is sometimes more difficult for persons  with disabilities, particularly those with more severe disabilities, to find  and retain jobs, and that it is often more costly for the one-stop to serve  these individuals.
Marketing and outreach. Some officials and staff we interviewed cited a  variety of reasons why marketing the one-stops’ services and conducting  outreach to persons with disabilities, which are activities required by the  WIA Section 188 regulations, may be important. One of the reasons cited  was that many individuals in the community, including those with  disabilities, were still not aware of the types of programs and services that  one-stops offer. For example, a one-stop official said that one-stops are  often thought of as an employment service, without recognition that they  can offer participants education, referrals to disability-related agencies for  services, and other assistance. Some WIA officials and disability-related  agency representatives also said that even when the disability community  knows what the one-stops offer, the one-stops often have to overcome the  belief that one-stops do not want to, or are not capable of, providing  services to persons with disabilities. For example, the disability  community may believe that the one-stops do not have assistive  technology or provide other assistance to persons with disabilities.  Additionally, some officials also stated that they believe that persons with  disabilities are still more likely to seek services from disability-related  organizations than from one-stops.
Some of the officials from local areas and one-stops that had engaged in  marketing and outreach efforts said they had used one or more  community-based disability organizations in their efforts. For example,  local areas or one-stops sometimes approached independent living  centers, agencies that serve individuals with specific types of disabilities,  or other organizations to inform them about the one-stops’ services and  their accessible technology. Some officials also said they used brochures,  television or radio ads, billboards, or other means to market their services  to persons with disabilities. Other local area and one-stop officials told us  about the specialized techniques they used, such as holding a yearly job  fair for persons with disabilities, which provides attendees with  information about one-stop services.
Officials in a few local areas and one-stops, however, stated that they were  hesitant to market their services to persons with disabilities. For example,  one local area official was not confident about the ability of some one-stop  staff to handle disability issues and, as a result, did not want to market  what the one-stops in the area could not provide. An official in another  local area expressed a similar viewpoint with regard to the lack of  marketing around an assistive technology device that had not been used.  The official stated that the local area had not advertised the device  because he did not believe the one-stops in that area were fully capable of  providing services to persons with disabilities.
Staff training. Although the WIA Section 188 regulations do not  specifically require that one-stop staff, other than the equal opportunity  officer and his or her staff, receive training on disability, the WIA Section  188 Checklist includes training as one example of how one-stops can  ensure compliance with WIA’s comprehensive access requirements. One- stop staff in the majority of the local areas we visited had received some  disability-related information and training, but the range of topics covered  varied across sites. For example, officials in at least one local area told us  that they were still focusing on providing staff with disability awareness  training, while officials, staff, and staff training providers in other  locations described a wider range of training topics, such as:    disability awareness or sensitivity training; types of services that VR provides, and the agency’s eligibility rules and  criteria;  types of disability-related agencies in the community, as well as who  they serve, the types of services they offer, and their contact  information;    how to identify certain disabilities, including hidden disabilities such as  mental illness or learning disabilities; and    WIA Section 188 training.
We also found that a few local areas and one-stops created comprehensive  training programs or targeted their training to identified staff needs. For  example, one local area created an extensive disability-training program  that provides online and in-class training on a range of relevant disability- related issues and discusses these issues in the context of particular  disabilities. This training program has been made available on a statewide  basis. Also, in one state, staff at the three one-stops we visited had  undergone, or were scheduled to undergo, an assessment of their training  needs. These assessments were then going to be used to develop training  plans for each of these one-stops.
Some officials and staff stated that the available disability-related staff  training was beneficial and provided positive outcomes. For example,  some officials and staff said that the available training made staff more  comfortable interacting with, and providing services to, persons with  disabilities and helped them learn about the range of disability-related  services that VR and other agencies in the community offer. However,  other officials and staff expressed some concerns about the available  training. For example, a few of these officials and staff said that they  would like training on specific disability-related topics to be available, and  in at least one case, local area and one-stop officials had concerns about  how well their limited training prepared staff for providing services to  persons with disabilities. Additionally, some of the officials, staff, and staff  training providers we interviewed said that their training efforts were  affected by high staff turnover and the prospect of staff forgetting the  information learned in training if it is not used very often. Some officials,  staff, and staff training providers said that offering ongoing training was  important for these reasons or that they would like ongoing training to be  available in their one-stops.
section_title: One-Stops and Disability Agencies Have Established Various Relationships to Serve Persons with Disabilities
paragraphs: One-stops, VR, and other disability-related agencies in the community have  formed various relationships to provide services to persons with  disabilities. From our site visits, we found that the structure of the one- stops’ relationships with VR varied, particularly in terms of whether   co-location was occurring. While most of the one-stops we visited had VR  staff on-site at least part of the time, four of the sites we visited had no   on-site VR staff. Table 4 shows the co-location status of VR staff at the  one-stops we visited.
Officials from the sites at which full- or part-time co-location of VR staff  was taking place said that co-location was beneficial for a variety of  reasons. For example, some WIA and VR officials said that co-location  itself helped the one-stop staff provide faster and less fragmented services  to persons with disabilities because, when the one-stop staff made  referrals to VR, they did not have to send customers off-site. A few  officials also stated that co-location facilitated information sharing and  helped build relationships between the staff in the two agencies. The  reasons for VR staff not being on-site also varied, and included a lack of  space in the one-stop, the inability of VR to break its lease at an existing  local office, and lack of an interface between the one-stops’ and VR’s  computer systems.
The one-stops we visited also varied in terms of the extent to which they  formed relationships with disability-related service providers other than  VR. Although VR has extensive expertise in providing services to persons  with disabilities, other disability agencies in the community also have  expertise and resources that can benefit one-stops. At the time of our site  visits, a few local areas and one-stops were relying primarily on VR and  had not formed working relationships with any other disability agencies.  However, other local areas and one-stops we visited had formed  relationships with one or more disability-related organizations in the  community, such as independent living centers, mental health agencies,  and cognitive/developmental disability agencies. In at least one instance,  a local area formed relationships with agencies that focus on particular  impairments. This local area conducted a needs analysis and found that  relationships with organizations that provide services to persons with  psychiatric impairments, learning disabilities, and substance abuse issues  were lacking. As a result, the local area conducted outreach to these types  of organizations in order to initiate relationships with them.
Officials from local areas and their one-stops, as well as those from VR and  community disability agencies, cited a range of benefits to being able to  refer their customers to one another for services, when it was appropriate  to do so. For example, some WIA and VR officials said the one-stop’s  relationship with VR allowed the two agencies to combine their resources  to maximize the services they can provide to their customers. For  example, for co-enrolled customers, one agency might pay for school  tuition while another pays for books. Some local area and one-stop  officials also said that referring customers to VR and other community  disability agencies is beneficial because those agencies have the ability  and funding to provide certain services that the one-stops cannot. In  addition, officials in some local areas and one-stops said that VR and other  community agencies’ willingness to conduct staff training, provide one- stop accessibility assessments, or participate in one-stop access  committees was beneficial.
VR and community disability agencies also cited a number of benefits to  referring their customers to the one-stops, including access to the one- stops’ career resource centers’ computers and telephones, their workshop  or training classes (such as those for computer skills, interview skills, and  résumé-writing), and a range of job listings and employer connections  broader than their own. VR officials also cited other benefits. For example,  when a VR customer is faced with delayed services because VR is waiting  for documents substantiating the customer’s disability, the one-stops can  provide other services in the interim. Additionally, VR officials told us they  find it useful to refer individuals who did not qualify for services through  VR, whether because of limited funding or other reason, to the one-stop  for services.
section_title: Labor Has Taken Actions to Ensure That One-Stops Comply with Access Requirements, but These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient
paragraphs: Labor has taken several actions to ensure that persons with disabilities  have comprehensive access to one-stops, including training, monitoring,  and enforcement activities, but these efforts may not be sufficient. For  example, Labor has not only funded grants, it has also provided training in  ways to facilitate comprehensive accessibility in the one-stop centers.  Specifically, within Labor, ETA and ODEP, along with SSA, provided  Disability Program Navigator training in November 2003 in which  successful approaches to ensuring comprehensive access to one-stops  were discussed. Additional Disability Program Navigator training was  provided in November 2004. Further, CRC, with assistance from ETA and  ODEP has provided written guidance and assistance to one-stops on  accommodations and other ways to improve comprehensive access for  persons with disabilities. Also within Labor, CRC conducts national equal  opportunity training annually. Its August 2004 training included topics  such as new EO officer orientation, implementing an MOA, ensuring  compliance with WIA Section 188, testing and assessment tools for  improving services to persons with disabilities, and train-the-trainer EO  training.
In addition to providing training, CRC is the entity responsible for  interpreting, monitoring, and enforcing WIA Section 188 regulations  regarding programs receiving financial assistance from Labor, including  the applicable comprehensive access and administrative regulatory  requirements for one-stop centers. One key method Labor uses to ensure  compliance with these regulations has been to require that each state’s  governor establish and sign an MOA, which describes and contains  supporting documentation of the policies, procedures, and systems that  each state has established to ensure compliance. By signing the MOA, and  submitting it to CRC, the governor agrees to adhere to its provisions. CRC  provides guidance on preparing the MOA, reviews the adequacy of each  state MOA submitted, and approves those MOAs that meet its standards.  Currently, all governors have submitted MOAs that have been approved by  CRC. After initial approval, states are to notify CRC of any updates to their  MOAs, and every 2 years Labor requires states to review them and the  manner in which they have been implemented, and determine whether  their MOAs continue to be effective in ensuring compliance with the  requirements of WIA Section 188 and its implementing regulations.
In addition, CRC monitors states’ compliance with the nondiscrimination,  comprehensive access, and administrative regulatory requirements by  conducting on-site technical assistance compliance reviews at selected  locations. To facilitate the review process, CRC conducts a 2- to 3-day  training session for state, local workforce investment area, and one-stop  center staff. In 2003, CRC completed its first phase of on-site training,  technical assistance, and compliance reviews in two large metropolitan  areas in two states, Miami/Dade County, Florida, and New York, New  York. According to Labor’s 2003 Annual Report, CRC focuses its reviews  on large metropolitan areas so as to maximize the use of its resources. The  annual report notes that the large labor markets in these areas provide the  opportunity for gaining a representative picture of the degree of  compliance with nondiscrimination and equal opportunity laws and  regulations.
In both metropolitan areas it reviewed, CRC identified instances of  noncompliance, including the existence of barriers limiting services to  persons with disabilities. At one of the two metropolitan areas, CRC found  significant differences between the disability-related requirements in WIA  Section 188 and its implementing regulations and the policies, procedures,  and systems that were actually being used. For example, CRC found that  the local area had developed a service delivery system in which customers  with disabilities were routinely being served by programs or activities that  were separate from those used to serve customers without disabilities.  Officials at the local area told CRC such a service delivery system had  developed in part because there was a general sentiment among disability- related service providers that many of their customers did not feel  comfortable in the one-stops. The WIA Section 188 regulations, however,  require that services to qualified persons with disabilities be provided in  the most integrated settings appropriate to the needs of those customers.  Therefore, as noted in CRC’s review, a one-stop center generally should  not refer customers with disabilities to a separate program or activity until  after it has conducted an individualized assessment of a customer’s needs,  and determined that the channels used to serve customers without  disabilities cannot provide equally effective aid, benefits, services, or  training to persons with disabilities. In addition, the ultimate decision  whether to accept the referral to a separate program or activity must be  left up to the customer with a disability. If the customer declines to accept  the referral, the one-stop must serve the customer with a disability through  the same programs or activities used to serve all other customers.
In addition, CRC found that the EO officer at the local area in that  metropolitan area had not been provided with sufficient staff, other  resources, or adequate support from top management to carry out his  duties. As a result, staff at the local workforce investment area and   one-stops had little understanding of their disability-related or other  obligations under WIA Section 188 regulations.
At the other metropolitan area reviewed, CRC found that some of the  policies, procedures, and systems in the state’s approved MOA had not  been fully implemented. For instance, the local workforce investment area  had developed an intake eligibility form for use by the one-stops that  included questions concerning whether or not the customer had a  disability that was or was not a substantial barrier to employment.   Frontline staff at the one-stop centers told CRC that all customers were  welcome to use self-service and core services. However, CRC found that  customers who indicated on the intake form that they had a disability  could not receive intensive or training services unless they provided the  one-stop with documentation to support their disability, even when  disability was not an eligibility criterion to receive such services. CRC  found that the use of the intake form, combined with the requirement that  customers provide documentation of their disability, unnecessarily  screened out people with disabilities from receiving intensive and training  services, even though Labor’s WIA Section 188 regulations require that the  one-stops must not deny any qualified person with a disability the  opportunity to participate in, or benefit from, a WIA-funded program or  activity because of that person’s disability. On the basis of its findings,  CRC required the state entities responsible for WIA in which the two  metropolitan areas were located to provide it with written responses of  the corrective actions they planned to make.
In addition, in May 2004, the CRC Director requested that all states  complete, for themselves and their largest local area, a self-assessment  tool to assess compliance with the equal opportunity and  nondiscrimination laws and regulations. The self-assessment tool, which  provides a structured approach for monitoring compliance, was adapted  from the WIA Section 188 Disability Checklist. For each state and its  largest local workforce investment area, the self-assessment tool asks  whether or not each measure of compliance has been met. For all unmet  measures, the self-assessment tool asks for a written explanation of how  and when the measure will be met. At the time of our review, CRC was in  the process of developing a plan to analyze the qualitative responses they  would receive from the states. CRC anticipates using the information  provided by these self-assessments and from its on-site reviews to identify  exemplary practices as well as areas needing improvement.
In addition to the two on-site reviews CRC conducted in 2003, CRC is in  the process of conducting two additional reviews in two large  metropolitan areas in two other states, which it plans to complete during  fiscal year 2005. To date the monitoring and enforcement efforts that have  been or are being conducted account for less than 2 percent of the total  number of local areas and one-stops nationwide. Moreover, the CRC  Director said that she had not yet determined whether CRC would conduct  additional on-site reviews. Limited staff and competing work priorities  may hinder CRC’s ability to conduct additional reviews. The Director  noted that CRC has experienced an erosion in the number of staff since  1998, and she did not foresee any change to this trend in the future. The   44 professional and administrative staff that CRC currently has are  responsible for not only all issues involving discrimination in one-stops  and other Labor-funded programs, but also for all discrimination issues  involving the more than 17,000 employees at Labor. Moreover, the Director  explained that these staff are also responsible for addressing other  workload priorities, such as issues to improve access to programs and  activities for persons who are limited in their English proficiency.
section_title: Information on Employment Outcomes Is Limited
paragraphs: Information about the employment outcomes of persons with disabilities  is limited by the extent to which disability data are collected and the  overall methods used for collecting data for WIA’s performance measures.  The three WIA-funded programs—Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth— have performance measures established under WIA that states must track  and report in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the programs.  These performance measures gauge program results in such areas as job  placement, employment retention, earnings changes, and skill attainment.  In addition to providing information about all participants in the three  WIA-funded programs, Labor also publishes outcome information about  certain subpopulations, including veterans, older individuals, and persons  with disabilities.
The information Labor publishes on the employment outcomes of persons  with disabilities, however, is limited for several reasons. One reason is that  the information is limited to the subpopulation of persons with disabilities  who disclose their disability status, and therefore the employment  outcomes may be misleading for the total population of persons with  disabilities receiving services through WIA. The WIA Section   188 regulations require one-stops to collect, maintain, and report job  seekers’ demographic data—including disability status—to ensure that  discrimination is not occurring. Labor has issued guidance stating that  one-stops must inquire about disability status from job seekers upon  registration for services. Such inquiries must be asked of all job seekers,  but an individual’s decision to disclose his or her disability status must be  completely voluntary. Even though an individual declines to indicate his or  her disability status, the one-stop must still provide services to the  individual.
Further, the collection of information on employment outcomes, including  the information on persons with disabilities, is limited to those persons  who are registered for WIA services. Current law does not require job  seekers who receive services that are self-service and informational in  nature to be included in the performance measures. Labor’s guidance  instructs states to register and report on adults and dislocated workers  who receive core services that require significant staff assistance designed  to help with job seeking or acquiring occupational skills, but states have  flexibility in deciding what constitutes significant staff assistance. We  have previously reported that most of the one-stop customers who  participate in self-directed services, and receive only limited staff  assistance, are estimated to be the largest proportion of job seekers under  WIA. But since they are not registered for services, they are excluded  from the employment outcome data published by Labor. In that report, we  also noted that Labor said that it is developing a new reporting system that  would enable states to report activity and outcomes for all WIA  participants. According to Labor, tracking all one-stop job seekers will  enable officials to obtain information about who is served, what services  are provided, which partner programs provided the services, and what  outcomes are achieved.
Finally, the performance measurement system developed under WIA may  have a negative effect on the economic outcomes of some people with  disabilities because the performance levels may provide a disincentive to  serve certain clients, including those with disabilities. Under WIA,  performance levels are tied to incentives and sanctions so that states can  be financially rewarded if they meet them or penalized if they do not. As  such, local areas may be reluctant to provide WIA-funded services to job  seekers, including persons with disabilities, who may be less likely than  others to find employment or experience an increase in earnings when  they are placed in jobs. To address this issue, we recently recommended  that the Secretary of Labor develop an adjustment model or other  systematic method to account for different populations and local  economic conditions when negotiating performance levels. In  commenting on our recommendation, Labor agreed with the importance  of taking economic conditions and characteristics of the population into  account when setting performance expectations and had commissioned a  study of adjustment models that could better take these differences into  account.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The WIA one-stop system’s ability to provide comprehensive access to its  programs, services, and activities can affect whether, and how, individuals  with disabilities participate in the American workforce. Although Labor  has developed specific regulations requiring that people with disabilities  have equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from the programs and  services offered in the WIA one-stop system, its efforts to date may not be  sufficient to ensure that result. Five years after Labor issued regulations  implementing the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of  WIA Section 188, the agency has yet to develop and implement a long-term  plan for ensuring that the one-stop system complies with the  comprehensive access requirements for persons with disabilities. Although  CRC, ETA and ODEP have worked together on some comprehensive  access projects, they have not developed an overall plan to conduct the  activities necessary to ensure comprehensive access to one-stops for all  Americans.
section_title: Recommendation
paragraphs: To improve comprehensive access for persons with disabilities to the one- stop system, we recommend that Labor develop and implement a long- term plan for ensuring that the one-stop system complies with the  comprehensive access requirements for people with disabilities. Moreover,  in this era of constrained resources, Labor should utilize the expertise of  CRC, ETA, and ODEP staff in developing such a plan.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Labor and  Education for their review and comments. Education did not have  comments on our report.
Labor generally agreed with our recommendation and said that even more  could be done to ensure comprehensive access within the one-stop  system. Specifically, ETA has pledged to work with ODEP and CRC to  develop and implement a long-term plan for addressing comprehensive  access in the one-stop system. ETA also suggested that the development of  such a long-term plan should include all of the participating agencies and  programs. Moreover, ODEP stated that the comprehensive plan should  also address nonspecialized disability supports and services, such as  transportation.
ODEP and CRC also provided us with some general comments on our  report. ODEP noted that, in addition to the WIG and Navigator grants,  Labor supports other efforts to facilitate the inclusion of people with  disabilities in the one-stop system. Although our report focuses on those  grants that are most directly related to facilitating comprehensive access  in the one-stop system, we have added examples of some of the types of  grants that ODEP has awarded to support employment-related initiatives  for people with disabilities. In addition, CRC asked us to clarify our use of  the term comprehensive access. CRC expressed some concern that we had  included administrative requirements in the use of the term  comprehensive access. CRC believed that administrative requirements  should not be included as they are not specifically disability-related. We  have modified the language in our report to clarify that the administrative  requirements are not included in the term comprehensive access.
ETA, ODEP, and CRC also provided us with technical comments and  clarifications, which we have incorporated as appropriate. Copies of their  comments appear in appendix I.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, the  Secretary of Education, relevant congressional committees, and others  who are interested. Copies will also be made available to others upon  request. The report will be available on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any  questions about this report. Other major contributors to this report are  listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: William E. Hutchinson and Caterina Pisciotta made significant  contributions to all phases of this report. In addition, Jessica Botsford and  Richard Burkard provided legal assistance, and Amy Buck assisted in  report development.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: 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.
Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to  Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization.   GAO-03-884T. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.
Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business  Needs, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for  Some Workers. GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003.
Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and  Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to  Other Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate  Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective  Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance  Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness.  GAO-02-275. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative Voting  Methods. GAO-02-107. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns  over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.
Workforce Investment Act: New Requirements Create Need for More  Guidance. GAO-02-94T. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.