Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes
Published: 2005-06-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998 seeking to create a system connecting employment, education, and training services to better match job seekers to labor market needs. However, questions have been raised about how WIA funds are being used and, in particular, how much is being spent on training. Contributing to the concern about the use of WIA funds is the lack of accurate information about the extent to which WIA participants are enrolled in training activities. GAO was asked to determine (1) the extent to which WIA funds are used for training, (2) how local workforce boards manage the use of Individual Training Accounts (ITA) and what challenges they have encountered, and (3) what is known at the national level about outcomes of those being trained. In its comments, the Department of Labor (Labor) noted that some of our estimates on training conflicts with their estimates. Labor's estimate of the number of adults trained comes from their database and includes only those who had exited from the program. GAO's estimates represent a more complete and accurate picture than Labor's because they are based on information obtained directly from the local workforce areas, include all funds spent or obligated for training, and count all adults who received training in program year 2003, not just those who exited the program.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Local workforce boards used an estimated 40 percent of the WIA funds they had available in program year 2003 to obtain training services for WIA participants. Nationally, local boards had approximately $2.4 billion in WIA funds that were available to serve adults and dislocated workers during program year 2003 and used about $929 million for training activities. The remaining funds paid for other program costs as well as administrative costs. We estimate that 416,000 WIA participants received training during the year. However, because some individuals may have received more than one type of training, this count may include some individuals more than once. Most of the participants received occupational classroom training purchased with ITAs, which are established on behalf of an eligible participant to finance training services. Most local workforce boards have developed policies to manage the use of ITAs, but many boards have encountered challenges in trying to implement their use. Local boards often require participants to complete specified tasks prior to entering training, such as gathering additional information on their desired occupation. In addition, they generally limit the amount of money participants can spend on training using ITAs and how long the training can last. Among the challenges encountered by local boards was the lack of good performance data on training providers making it difficult to determine which providers were most effective. Local boards in rural areas faced a different challenge--lack of nearby training providers. Little is known on a national level about the outcomes of those being trained. Certain aspects of Labor's national participant database have been found to be incomplete and unverified. Additionally, data generally cannot be compared across states or local areas because of variations in data definitions. Labor is taking some steps to address these concerns, but the findings from this study reaffirm the need for a continued focus on resolving reported data quality issues.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998,  seeking to create a system connecting employment, education, and  training services to better match job seekers to labor market needs.  However, questions have been raised about how WIA funds are being used  and, in particular, how much is being spent on training. Contributing to the  concern about the use of WIA funds is the lack of accurate information  about the extent to which WIA participants are enrolled in training  activities. In program year 2003, the Congress appropriated approximately  $2.3 billion for the Department of Labor (Labor) to provide employment  and training services to adults (those individuals aged 18 and older) and  dislocated workers (in general, those individuals who have been laid off  and are unlikely to return to their previous employment). Because not  everyone needs or wants additional training, WIA authorizes local  workforce boards to oversee a variety of services provided through one- stop career centers to meet the needs of individual job seekers as well as  the needs of the businesses in their area. Such services include providing  information on job openings, comprehensive assessments, individual  counseling, supportive services—such as transportation and child care— and job training. Job training includes occupational skills training, which  is typically purchased by WIA participants using Individual Training  Accounts (ITA). ITAs are established on behalf of an eligible participant to  finance training services, and payments from these accounts can be made  in a variety of ways, including the electronic transfer of funds or the use of  vouchers.
The primary vehicle for collecting and reporting information about the  extent to which WIA participants are enrolled in training activities,  including training funded through ITAs, is Labor’s national participant  database, the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data  (WIASRD). However, both we and Labor’s Office of Inspector General  have raised concerns about the completeness and accuracy of data  contained in WIASRD. Because of your interest in how WIA funds are  being spent at the local level, you asked us to determine (1) the extent to  which WIA funds are used for training, (2) how local workforce boards  manage the use of ITAs and what challenges they have encountered, and  (3) what is known at the national level about outcomes of those being  trained.
To determine the extent to which program year 2003 WIA funds were used  for training, how local workforce boards manage ITAs, and what  challenges they have encountered in implementing ITAs, we conducted a  Web-based survey of the 590 local workforce investment boards that were  in existence in program year 2003 and located in the 50 states, District of  Columbia, and Puerto Rico.  We received responses from 428 (73 percent).  We used the 428 responses to make estimates about the entire population  of local workforce investment boards.  We gathered information for four  sources of WIA funds: adult formula funds, dislocated worker formula  funds, national emergency grant funds, and state set-aside funds for  statewide activities and rapid response activities. We collected  information for program year 2003 (July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004)  because it was the most recent year for which complete data were  available. We included questions in the survey to assess the reliability of  the financial and participant data. We also selected four states to visit— California, Georgia, Iowa, and Maryland—that varied in funding size and  geographic location. Within each state, we visited two local workforce  investment boards, selected to provide a mix of urban and rural areas. At  each location visited, we obtained additional information on training  policies implemented, challenges encountered, and reliability of data  systems. To assess what is known on a national level about outcomes of  those being trained, we obtained program year 2003 WIASRD data and  performed tests to assess its completeness. We also reviewed our prior  reports about the reliability of the WIASRD data and a report by Labor’s  Office of the Inspector General on WIA performance outcomes.   Appendix I contains a more detailed discussion of our scope and  methodology. We performed our work between June 2004 and May 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: WIA specifies a different funding source for each of the act’s main client  groups—youth, adults, and dislocated workers. Our report focuses on  adults and dislocated workers. Once the Congress appropriates WIA  funds, the amount of money that flows to states and local areas depends  on a specific formula that takes into account unemployment for the adult  and dislocated worker funding streams, the number of low-income  individuals for the adult funding stream, and the number of long-term  unemployed for the dislocated worker funding stream. Labor allots 100  percent of the adult funds and 80 percent of the dislocated worker funds  to states. The Secretary of Labor retains 20 percent of the dislocated  worker funds in a national reserve account to be used for National  Emergency Grants, demonstrations, and technical assistance and allots  the remaining funds to each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and  Puerto Rico. In program year 2003, Labor allotted approximately $2 billion  to states for adults and dislocated workers (see app. II for a listing of  program year 2003 allotments by state). Upon receiving its allotments,  each state can set aside no more than 15 percent to support statewide  activities. These may include a variety of activities that benefit adults,  youths, and dislocated workers statewide, such as providing assistance in  the establishment and operation of one-stop centers, developing or  operating state or local management information systems, and  disseminating lists of organizations that can provide training. In addition,  each state can set aside no more than 25 percent of its dislocated worker  funds to provide rapid response services to workers affected by layoffs  and plant closings. The funds set aside by the states to provide rapid  response services are intended to help dislocated workers transition  quickly to new employment. After states set aside funds for rapid response  and for other statewide activities, they allocate the remainder of the  funds—at least 60 percent—to their local workforce areas (see fig. 1).
Approximately 600 local workforce areas exist throughout the nation (see  fig. 2). Each local area has a local workforce board that administers WIA  activities within the local area, including selecting one-stop center  operators, identifying eligible training providers, developing links with  employers, and overseeing the use of funds for employment and training  activities.
WIA was intended to meet both the needs of businesses for skilled  workers and the training, education, and employment needs of individuals.  The act allows training and employment programs to be designed and  managed at the local level to meet the unique needs of local businesses  and individuals. Another aspect of the act was to provide customers with  easy access to the information and services they needed and empower  those who need training to obtain the training they find most appropriate.  One cornerstone of WIA was the one-stop concept where information  about and access to a wide array of services would be available at a single  location. At the one-stop center, customers can get information about job  openings; receive job search and placement assistance; receive an  assessment of their skill levels, aptitudes, and abilities; and obtain  information on a full array of employment-related services, including  information on local education and training providers. Through the one- stop centers, employers also have a single point of contact to provide  information about current and future skills needed by their workers and to  list job openings.
The services typically available at one-stop centers fall into the following  categories:    Core services. These include job search and placement assistance, the  provision of labor market information, and preliminary assessment of  skills and needs. Core services are available to all adults who come to a  one-stop center, with no eligibility requirements imposed.
Intensive services. These include comprehensive assessments, case  management, short-term prevocational services, work experience, and  internships. Intensive services are available to qualified adults and  dislocated workers who are unable to obtain or retain a job that leads  to self-sufficiency.
Training services. These include occupational skills training, on-the- job training, customized training, and skill upgrading and retraining.  Training services are available to qualified adults and dislocated  workers who are unable to obtain or retain employment after receiving  at least one intensive service.
Supportive services. These include services—such as transportation,  child care, and housing—that are necessary to enable WIA participants  to take part in WIA activities.
WIA requires the use of ITAs, which allow qualified individuals to  purchase the training they determine best for themselves. Adults and  dislocated workers use ITAs to purchase training services from eligible  providers they select in consultation with case managers. Payments from  ITAs may be made in a variety of ways, including the electronic transfer of  funds through financial institutions, vouchers, or other appropriate  methods. Payments may also be made incrementally. WIA requires that  ITAs can only be used to purchase training from programs listed on an  eligible training provider list (ETPL). Local boards, in partnership with the  state, compile this list by identifying training providers and programs  whose performance qualifies them to receive WIA funds to train adults and  dislocated workers. Good information allows participants to make  informed training choices. In this regard, WIA requires that local boards  ensure that participants have access to performance information on  training providers, including the percentage of individuals completing their  training program, the percentage of individuals in the program who  obtained jobs, and the wages earned by these individuals.
Under certain situations, however, local boards have the option of  purchasing training without using ITAs. The three exceptions to using  ITAs are  if the activity is on-the-job training or customized training,  if a local board determines an insufficient number of eligible providers  exist in the area (such as in a rural area), or  if a training provider has a demonstrated effectiveness in serving a  special population that face multiple barriers to employment.
To assess whether it is accomplishing its goals, WIA established a  performance measurement system for the programs directly funded by  WIA—one that emphasized results in areas of job placement, retention,  earnings, and skill attainment (see table 1). WIA requires states to use  Unemployment Insurance wage records to track employment-related  outcomes. States submit this information to Labor in annual reports  submitted each December. States also submit quarterly performance  reports, which are due 45 days after the end of each quarter. In addition to  the performance reports, states submit their updates for WIASRD every  January. WIA also requires Labor to conduct at least one multisite study to  determine program results by the end of fiscal year 2005.
section_title: Local Boards Used an Estimated 40 Percent of Available WIA Funds to Train Program Participants
paragraphs: Local boards used an estimated 40 percent of the WIA funds they had  available in program year 2003 to obtain training services for WIA  participants. Nationally, local boards had approximately $2.4 billion in  WIA funds that were available to serve adult participants during program  year 2003 and used about $929 million for training activities, primarily  occupational classroom training. The remaining funds pay for other  program costs, including job search assistance, case management, and  supportive services, as well as administrative costs. We estimate that  416,000 WIA participants received training during the year. However,  because some individuals may have received more than one type of  training, this count may include some individuals more than once. Of those  trained in program year 2003, about 323,000 participants received  occupational classroom training, of which about 85 percent was  purchased through ITAs. Local boards also used the flexibility provided  under WIA to offer a broad range of training-related activities aimed at  increasing employability but not included in WIA’s definition of training.
subsections: section_title: An Estimated 40 Percent of Available WIA Funds Were Used for Training
paragraphs: Local boards nationwide used an estimated 40 percent of their WIA funds  for training in program year 2003. During that year, local boards had about  $2.4 billion in WIA funds available to serve adults and dislocated workers.  Almost all local boards had funds from the WIA adult and dislocated  worker funding streams; in addition, many boards had National  Emergency Grants or funds from two state set-asides, the 15 percent set- aside for statewide activities and the 25 percent set-aside for rapid  response. WIA permits local boards up to 2 years to spend each program’s  funding. Accordingly, to get a national picture of available WIA funds at  the local level, we defined available funds as the combined amount of  program year 2003 funds and funds carried over from program year 2002.  Of the approximate $2.4 billion in combined WIA funds that local boards  had available, about $1.8 billion (75 percent) came from the program year  2003 allocation, while the rest consisted of funds carried over from 2002  (see fig. 3). Allocations from the WIA adult and WIA dislocated worker  funding streams together constituted about 80 percent of the funds local  boards could use.
Of the $2.4 billion available, local boards used approximately $929 million  in program year 2003 to fund training activities, representing about 40  percent of the WIA funds that were available to serve adult participants in  the program. The remaining funds pay for other program costs, including  job search assistance, case management, and supportive services, as well  as administrative costs. We found that local boards spent an estimated  $724 million on training and obligated another $205 million. Obligations  are funds local boards commit to pay for training, but for which services  have not yet been provided and costs not yet incurred (see fig. 4).
Local boards used a slightly higher percentage of their WIA adult funds (43  percent) for training than their dislocated worker and state set-aside  funds, both of which had 37 percent used for training (see fig. 5).
Of the WIA dollars local boards spent on training, an estimated 79 percent  was for occupational classroom training. Boards used the remainder of the  funds to pay for on-the-job training, customized training, and other types  of training, including adult basic education and skill upgrading.
In addition to using WIA funding, many local boards also leveraged other  sources of funding to help pay the costs of training for WIA participants.  Some of these funding sources were federal programs, including Trade  Adjustment Assistance (TAA), the H-1B skill grant program, and  Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). For example, in  program year 2003, one board we visited in Maryland enrolled 49 WIA  participants in training funded by TAA. Other sources of funding came  from state and local governments or private entities. For example, at one  site we visited in Georgia, the local public school system paid for high  school equivalency classes for WIA participants, including teacher salaries,  testing, and books and materials. In addition, the local housing authority  provided training on a variety of soft skills for 600 of its clients at the one- stop center.
section_title: WIA Participants Were Most Likely to Receive Occupational Classroom Training
paragraphs: Overall, we estimate that 416,000 WIA participants were enrolled in  training during program year 2003 and that about 323,000 participants  received occupational classroom training. In our survey, local boards  reported the number of people enrolled in each category of training rather  than the total receiving training. As a result, it is possible that the 416,000  includes some duplication of individuals who received more than one kind  of training during that year (see table 2).
We estimate that more than three-quarters of the training that participants  received (78 percent) was occupational classroom training (see fig. 6). On- the-job training and customized training each accounted for an additional  6 percent of the total training that occurred in program year 2003, while 10  percent of training included other activities, such as adult education,  literacy classes, entrepreneurial training, and skill upgrading.
Approximately 85 percent of the occupational classroom training provided  during program year 2003 was purchased by participants through ITAs. At  some local boards, however, specific kinds of occupational classroom  training were obtained without the use of ITAs. For example, one local  board we visited in Iowa used WIA funds to pay for classes in typing skills  at the local community college, but ITAs were not used to pay for this  training because it was short-term training that did not result in a  credential.
At the eight sites we visited, participants used ITAs to pay for training in a  wide variety of occupations. WIA regulations require that participants  select a training program directly linked to employment opportunities.  Each of these local boards told us that nursing and other health care  professions were in high demand locally, and accordingly, participants in  all eight areas sought training in health care occupations. Other high- demand occupations at some of the local boards we visited included  information technology, truck driving, manufacturing, and teaching. As  local labor markets have changed, some boards have developed specially  tailored programs designed to mirror shifts in labor demand. For example,  one local area in California faced massive layoffs in the high-tech industry  but had a dearth of qualified teachers in the local schools. As a result, the  local board created a program to train dislocated high-tech workers to  become teachers.
section_title: Local Boards Fund Training-Related Activities and Services
paragraphs: In addition to providing training activities, local boards used the flexibility  provided under WIA to offer a broad range of intensive services, some of  which are aimed at increasing job skills. These training-related activities,  including work experience, internships, and computer skills training, are  not captured in WIA’s definition of training and, therefore, not paid for  with training dollars. Accordingly, neither the amount of funding spent on  these activities nor the number of participants who benefit from them are  identified in our statistics on training. Nevertheless, these activities can  play a significant role in preparing WIA participants for successful  employment.
Although many WIA participants do not need extensive training to obtain a  job, some still need help improving a variety of skills that will further their  chances of successfully searching for and retaining a job. Much like  training, these activities are intended to increase employability. Many are  short-term activities, such as computer lab training and other intensive  skills workshops. For example, approximately one-half of local boards use  WIA funds to offer participants computer lab training in software  applications, basic keyboarding, and other computer skills. One board we  visited in Georgia offers another type of short-term, intensive skills  workshop through its Basic Industrial Maintenance program. During this  4-week training course, participants learn a variety of skills including the  basics of construction, plumbing, and carpentry. Other training-related  activities that are intended to increase skills but are not included in WIA  training are internships and work experience opportunities. For example,  one local board we visited in Iowa spent about $79,000 in program year  2003 to provide internships and work experience opportunities to 41 WIA  participants.
Moreover, some boards we visited used WIA funds to pay for supportive  services, such as child care and transportation, that enable participants to  attend training. Like funding spent on training-related activities, the cost of  these supportive services is not reflected in the amount of WIA funding  that local boards spend on training. However, these services can represent  a large investment of WIA dollars. Local boards have flexibility in whether  and how they use WIA funds for services that support training. For  example, one local board we visited in rural Iowa spent over $160,000 in  program year 2003 on a wide array of supportive services for people in  training, including child care, transportation, eye exams, and glasses.  Because the area contains several correctional facilities, the board also  used a portion of these WIA funds to purchase bicycles for ex-offenders  who were attempting to reenter the workforce but had lost their driving  privileges. Another local area we visited in California spent $87,000 in  supportive services during program year 2003; in addition to paying for  child care and transportation, these WIA funds paid for items including  books, uniforms, and tools, as well as services such as fingerprinting and  tuberculosis testing, which some training programs require. Not all boards  provided WIA-funded supportive services to people in training, however.  One local area we visited in Maryland did not use WIA funding to provide  supportive services to its adult participants, although it referred those in  need to other agencies for assistance.
section_title: Local Boards Manage ITAs but Have Faced Challenges in Implementing Them
paragraphs: Most local workforce boards have developed policies to manage the use of  ITAs, but many boards have encountered challenges in trying to  implement their use. Local boards often require participants to complete  various skill assessments prior to entering training and gather additional  information on the occupation for which they desire training. In addition,  they generally limit the amount of money participants can spend on  training using ITAs and how long participants can spend in training.  Although the vast majority of local boards use ITAs, most also said they  have faced challenges in managing their use. The challenge most  frequently identified was lack of good performance data on training  providers. Local boards in rural areas face a different challenge—lack of  nearby training providers. Some boards have identified initiatives to  mitigate the challenges they face.
subsections: section_title: Most Local Boards Have Policies to Manage ITAs
paragraphs: We estimate that most local boards established procedures to ensure that  any training purchased using ITAs is warranted and placed spending limits  on individual ITAs to control costs. WIA regulations require that  participants must receive at least one intensive service, such as individual  counseling and career planning, before enrolling in training. Many local  boards also require participants in the adult and dislocated worker  programs who want training to first complete specified activities to  demonstrate their need for training. For example, local boards may require  participants to complete skill assessments or attend specific workshops.
In addition, they may require participants to gather information on the  occupation for which they want training or document their inability to find  employment (see fig. 7).
More than 80 percent of the local boards require adults and dislocated  workers to complete specified skill assessments or tests before being  allowed to purchase training with ITAs. For example, three local boards in  Georgia, Kansas, and Mississippi commented that participants are required  to complete career assessments or occupational interest inventories prior  to training. A local board in New York mentioned that staff are required to  interview participants and determine whether they are in need of training  and have the skills and qualifications to successfully participate in the  training program. A local board we visited in Georgia required participants  to demonstrate an aptitude and interest in an area before enrolling in  training. Depending on how proactive the participant is, the process can  take up to 6 months before the participant is enrolled in a training  program.
Approximately 70 percent of the local boards require adults and dislocated  workers to gather additional information about the occupation for which  they want training. For example, a local board in Arizona noted that  participants must interview three people working in their desired field;  another board, in Washington, commented that participants are required  to conduct informational interviews with employers in the occupation they  wish to pursue. Similarly, three of the local boards that we visited required  participants to perform specific tasks prior to entering training. For  example, one local board we visited in Georgia required participants to  gather specific information on training providers and then compose an  essay explaining why they chose a particular course and provider. Another  board we visited, in California, asks participants to research and disclose  information on the training they want to pursue, including the  occupation’s starting wage, whether this wage is sufficient to support  them and their family, working conditions, available job openings, and  education and skill requirements. Also, a local board we visited in  Maryland requires participants seeking certain types of training, such as  on the operation of a tractor-trailer, to obtain prehire letters that  guarantee employment once training is completed.
About one-third of local boards required adults and dislocated workers to  complete workshops prior to enrolling in training. For example, a West  Virginia board noted that participants must demonstrate their soft skills or  complete a soft skills program before entering occupational training. One  of the local boards we visited in California requires that participants  attend an orientation and a soft skills workshop prior to entering training.  They also offer additional voluntary workshops, including those in which  participants explore different vocations, complete applications, practice  interviews, and perform self-assessments. Similarly, a local board we  visited in Georgia requires participants to take a general orientation and  résumé writing workshop before being eligible for ITAs.
Approximately 85 percent of local workforce boards limit the amount of  money participants can spend on training using ITAs. An estimated 31  percent of the local boards limited ITAs to between $3,000 and $5,000 (see  fig. 8). At local boards limiting ITAs, the amount of the caps ranged from  $350 at one local board to $15,000 at three local boards. One of the local  boards we visited in Maryland said that its ITA cap had changed four times  since program year 2000. The cap started at $4,000, was then increased to  $4500 because of inflation, and later rose to $5,500 because of the  increased demand for, and cost of, information technology training.  However, because of reduced WIA funding, the board later lowered the  cap to $3,000.
Rather than having a single dollar limit on ITAs, two local boards reported  having ITA caps that could vary by training program. Specifically, a local  board in Hawaii limits an ITA for any particular training program to the  cost of the least expensive provider among those who offer equivalent  programs, while a local board we visited in Iowa limits an ITA for a  particular training program to the highest cost of obtaining that training at  a state public institution.
Most of the boards that impose dollar caps on ITAs expect the amount of  the ITA to also cover the costs of books, tools, and uniforms. A number of  local boards also expect the amount of the ITA to cover the costs for  supportive services and other items, such as fees for licenses,  certifications, tests, and physical exams (see fig. 9).
In addition to limiting the amount of money participants can spend on  training, an estimated two-thirds of the local boards also limit how long  participants can spend in training. The most frequent limit on training was  2 years. Many of these local boards, however, indicated that time limits  could be waived depending on an individual’s circumstances. One of the  local boards we visited in Iowa had no time limit for training using ITAs,  but encouraged shorter-term training lasting one or two semesters,  especially for dislocated workers, because of the limited period for  collecting unemployment insurance.
The use of particular training providers varied among the local boards we  visited. For example, in program year 2003, one local board we visited in  California used 48 private schools as training providers for 305  participants and 3 community colleges for 42 participants. This local board  also used 15 4-year colleges for 202 participants. The majority of these  participants were former high-tech workers being trained to become  teachers. A local board we visited in Georgia relied heavily on private,  proprietary schools, using them for about 1,000 participants each year. The  board believes these schools are more flexible than other training  providers and offer a wide array of training courses. On the other hand, a  local board we visited in Iowa used community colleges for 90 percent of  the 246 ITAs issued in program year 2003. Local boards responding to our  survey reported that 37 percent of the ITAs issued in program year 2003  were used at proprietary schools and 35 percent were used at community  colleges. The remainder were used at various providers, including 4-year  colleges, public vocational and technical schools, and community based- organizations.
In December 2004, Mathematica Policy Research issued an interim report  concluding that the way ITAs are administered influences the likelihood of  participants requesting counseling or receiving ITAs. The study also  found that different approaches to administering ITAs appeared to have a  limited effect on participants’ training choices. Labor funded the 3-year  study to assess how different approaches to administering ITAs affect  training choices, employment and earnings outcomes, returns on  investment, and customer satisfaction. Eight sites were included in the  study. These sites were located in or around Atlanta, Georgia; Bridgeport,  Connecticut; Charlotte, North Carolina; North Cook County, Illinois;  Jacksonville, Florida; and Phoenix, Arizona. Mathematica’s study results  are not generalizable beyond these eight sites. A later report by  Mathematica will present an analysis of how the ITA approaches affect  additional outcomes, including training completion, customer satisfaction,  and employment and earnings after training, as well as an analysis of the  return on the investment in training.
section_title: Local Boards Face Challenges in Implementing ITAs
paragraphs: Most local boards faced some challenges in their efforts to implement  ITAs, and local boards in rural areas face a unique challenge. The majority  of local boards encountered as challenges the lack of performance data on  training providers, the timing of training being offered, being able to get  new training providers on the eligible training provider list (ETPL), and  the ability to link the ITAs with economic development strategies (see  table 3). A few local boards have found ways to mitigate some of these  challenges.
Nearly two-thirds of the local workforce boards encountered the lack of  performance data on training providers as a challenge. For example, a  local board in Wisconsin commented that the lack of consistent data on  training providers reduces the value of the ETPL to local boards. A local  board in Missouri noted that one of the greatest challenges lies in not  having reliable information regarding the quality and relevance of the  training being offered by training providers. The board further stated that  the state’s report card containing performance information on training  providers in Missouri was incomplete or unavailable. Local boards we  visited in California and Iowa said that a statewide report card on training  provider performance did not exist. In lieu of a statewide report card, the  California boards tracked training provider performance themselves, while  the Iowa boards relied upon informal feedback about provider  performance.
Approximately 60 percent of the local boards encountered the timing of  the training offered by providers as a challenge. For example, two local  boards we visited in Georgia and Iowa said that some participants are  unable to attend training programs that are offered only during a regular  academic schedule. The Iowa board explained that some participants who  have to wait too long for a training program to begin may have their  unemployment insurance benefits run out before the training can be  completed. On the other hand, some local boards have found solutions to  deal with this issue. For example, a local board in Washington commented  that it purchased classroom group training to offer more flexibility as to  when training will be offered and to satisfy the demand for particular  training. Similarly, a local board in Massachusetts noted it persuaded local  technical high schools to offer programs at night, thereby resulting in  greater availability of training in trade-related fields that are in high labor  demand. A local board we visited in Maryland developed close  relationships with area community colleges that now schedule  occupational training outside the regular academic calendar.
More than half the boards faced getting new providers on the ETPL as a  challenge. This has been a long-standing concern. We reported in 2001 that  according to training providers, the data collection burden resulting from  participation in WIA can be significant and may discourage willingness to  participate under WIA as training providers. Labor has heard these  concerns from training providers and has approved waivers for 30 states.  These waivers, in effect, give states additional time to address data  collection challenges. However, getting training providers, particularly  community colleges, to participate in the ETPL remains a concern for  some local boards. For example, local boards in California, Indiana,  Massachusetts, and Michigan noted that some providers, community  colleges in particular, are reluctant to participate in the ETPL. A local  board that we visited in California elaborated on this point, stating that  community colleges in its area are operating at full capacity and do not  need WIA dollars or participants and, therefore, are not interested in  getting on the ETPL. Some local boards are finding ways to encourage  providers to participate. For example, one local board in Massachusetts  has been working collaboratively with other boards throughout the state  to meet with key figures in the community college system to provide  information, consultation, and feedback. Two local boards we visited in  Iowa and Maryland have developed strong relationships with the 16  community colleges in their areas, each of which is on state lists. Another  local board we visited in California conducts regional ETPL workshops  with training providers and shares ideas with other local boards in the  surrounding areas.
More than half of the local boards found linking ITAs with local economic  and business development strategies to be a challenge. Several local  boards provided different examples of why they found it difficult to  provide participants with training in high-demand occupations in their  area. The area around one local board we visited in California faced a  nursing shortage, but nearby training for nurses was difficult to obtain.  Some area community colleges were opting not to provide nursing training  because they could not recoup the costs of operating them. A local board  we visited in Georgia also said that keeping up with businesses’ needs is a  challenge and noted that some information technology sector-based  training courses are not always available. Other local boards identified  some initiatives they are pursuing to strengthen links with economic  development. For example:    A local board in Michigan partners with a local technical training  center to develop intensive, short-term certificate programs in high- skill, high-wage, and high-demand fields. The technical center is  operated by a local community college but offers non-credit certificate  programs responsive to business and community needs.
A local board in Ohio works closely with the local Chambers of  Commerce and economic development partners to formulate training  programs that are based on employer demands. Specifically, if the  board hears that a group of employers have a skill need, then the board  will develop the appropriate training program with a service provider.
A local board in Texas uses an industry cluster analysis report to focus  attention on specific industries and then targets funds for training in  these sectors. Training institutions must prepare industry-approved  training curriculums in order to have programs approved by the local  board and to have ITAs issued to participants for training.
A local board in Washington partnered with representatives from local  education, economic development, and government to develop a  shared blueprint for economic development and training around eight  high-demand industry clusters.
A number of local boards representing rural locations mentioned that the  requirement to use ITAs to purchase training from providers on the ETPL  presented a different problem for them from their counterparts in urban  areas. Local boards in Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, North  Carolina, and Utah all mentioned that participants in rural areas have few  nearby training providers from which to choose. Additionally, local boards  in Kansas and Montana noted that being located in a rural area with  limited providers makes dealing with ITAs burdensome. A local board that  we visited in rural California applied for and received a waiver from using  ITAs. The board directly contracts with a community college for a 2-year  program to train participants to become registered nurses and an 18- month program to train participants to become licensed vocational nurses.  Through April 2004, 73 participants have completed the nursing programs,  and according to the board, all were employed in their respective fields.
section_title: Little Is Known about Outcomes of Those Being Trained because of Weaknesses in Data Collected
paragraphs: Little is known on a national level about the outcomes of those being  trained. Certain aspects of WIASRD have been found to be incomplete and  unverified. Additionally, data generally cannot be compared across states  or local areas because of differences in data definitions. Labor is taking  some steps that may address these concerns and plans to complete an  evaluation that will measure the overall impact of the WIA program.
subsections: section_title: Concerns Remain That Data Collected Are Unreliable
paragraphs: Our analysis of program year 2003 WIASRD has shown that the database  does not contain information for a large number of data elements. It is  unclear if these values are missing because Unemployment Insurance  wage records are not available or because they simply were not entered  into the database by officials. This finding reaffirms issues that have been  raised previously about the quality of data that Labor uses to assess  program performance. Our 2004 report found that performance data  submitted by states in quarterly and annual reports were not sufficiently  reliable to determine outcomes for the WIA programs.  Labor’s Office of  Inspector General (OIG) raised the same concerns in 2002 by noting that  because of inadequate oversight of data collection and management, little  assurance exists that the states’ performance data for all WIA programs  are either accurate or complete. OIG’s report found that of the 12 local  areas examined, none had adequately documented procedures for  validating participant performance data. Similarly, none of the four states  examined had sufficient procedures to ensure the accuracy of their  reported performance data. At the time, OIG recommended that states use  a statistical sampling method for validating reported data.
Because of questions about the comparability of data elements, states’  performance data are of limited value for national comparisons, or even  comparisons within a single state. Labor allows local areas to exercise  some flexibility in determining how to collect and report certain  performance data on participants. For example, while local areas collect  data on a participant who leaves the program, they use different methods  to determine when a person has officially exited from the program.  WIASRD guidelines define participants as having exited the program on  the last date they received WIA services. Labor allows two ways to define  exit: (1) at the point of case closure or (2) when the participant has not  received any services or training for more than 90 days and is not  scheduled for future services. We found that local area definitions differ  from this and from each other. For example, one local board we visited  defines exit as occurring when participants are finished with their WIA  services; another board defines exit when participants have found a new  job and the wages for their new job are considered acceptable (regardless  of the number of days that have passed since their last service). Wage and  employment outcomes under these different circumstances would vary  greatly, making it difficult to compare outcome data across local areas. In  a prior report, we also noted the data are not comparable on what  constitutes a credential—whether it is the attainment of a certified skill or  of a degree.  Labor allows states and local areas to determine what  constitutes a credential.
section_title: Labor Is Taking Actions to Improve Data and Assess Impact of Program
paragraphs: Labor is taking some steps to address data quality concerns and improve  the data used at the national level. This includes implementing a new  project to validate the performance information collected and reported  under WIA. The data validation initiative covers both the accuracy of  reports submitted to Labor on program activity and performance  outcomes and the accuracy of individual data elements. The report  validation checks the accuracy of states’ software used to calculate the  performance reports submitted to Labor. For example, if a state reports,  for a particular time frame, that 100 adults found employment after they  received services, the validation software searches through the state’s  electronic records to ensure that 100 records are found that match these  criteria. Data element validation, on the other hand, evaluates the  accuracy of the participant data used to generate reports submitted to  Labor. The process compares selected information from a sample of  participant exit records with the original paperwork that contained this  information. Data element validation results in an estimate of the error  rate for each data element that has been selected for validation.
While Labor provides guidelines for the data validation, states are  responsible for executing the initiative. Program year 2003 is the first year  states have completed the process, and Labor plans to review state results  and start setting acceptable standards for error rates. Eventually, Labor  plans to hold states accountable for meeting accuracy standards. Once  these accuracy standards are in place, states failing to meet the standards  may lose eligibility for incentive awards or, in cases with significant  deviations from the standards, may be sanctioned. Because this initiative  is relatively new, it is too soon to tell if it will satisfactorily resolve all data  quality problems associated with WIASRD outcome measures—but it is a  step toward addressing these concerns.
Labor is also in the initial stages of developing a single, streamlined  reporting and record-keeping system that will replace a series of  databases, including WIASRD, and may address some concerns about data  quality. The system, formally called the ETA Management Information and  Longitudinal Evaluation (EMILE), would replace the current data  collection and reporting requirements for 12 employment and training  programs. The goal of the new system is to allow for consistent,  comparable analysis across Labor’s employment and training programs,  using the same definitions for specific measures. These definitions, known  as common measures, are to be implemented July 1, 2005, well before  EMILE is implemented.  A feasibility analysis on the EMILE proposal,  which will provide information on next steps, is in the planning stages and  should be completed by December 2005, but it is unclear how soon EMILE  will be implemented.
Labor has plans to meet the requirement that it conduct at least one  multisite study to determine the general effectiveness of the WIA program  and the specific impacts of WIA services on the community and  participants involved. WIA requires Labor to conduct at least one multisite  evaluation using a control group by the end of fiscal year 2005. However,  as noted in a prior report, Labor will not meet this deadline.  Labor is  waiting for WIA reauthorization to begin the evaluation, and will likely  wait until the second year after reauthorization to commission the study.  Labor anticipates it will take at least 5 years to complete the first  evaluation.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: WIA represented a fundamental shift for workforce development because  it attempted to significantly change how employment and training services  were provided and because it provided considerable latitude to those  implementing WIA at the state and local levels, yet little is known about  the impacts of these changes. In program year 2003, local workforce  boards used a substantial amount of WIA funds to train a large number of  individuals. During these times of increasingly tight federal budgets, it is  important to know what types of training are the most successful and how  the outcomes from training compare with outcomes from other services.  We previously recommended that Labor take actions to improve data  quality and to conduct an impact evaluation of WIA services. While Labor  is taking steps to address the accuracy of data contained in WIASRD,  reliable information is not yet available on a national level as to the  outcomes of those being trained. In addition, Labor will likely wait until  2007 to conduct the multisite impact evaluation required by WIA. Our  findings reaffirm the need for a continued focus on resolving reported data  quality issues and determining what services are the most successful.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Labor for review and comment.  In its  comments, Labor acknowledged that the WIA reporting system currently  has limited information on training expenditures and training outcomes,  but noted that some of our information conflicts with their estimates of  these activities.  In particular, Labor states the Administration’s estimate  of the amount of WIA funds spent on training is lower than the 40 percent  that we estimate was used for training in program year 2003.  In addition,  Labor estimates adult training enrollments to be roughly 200,000.   We  agree with Labor that the WIA reporting system has limited reliable  information.  As a result, we went directly to the local workforce boards to  obtain as complete a picture as possible on the extent to which WIA funds  were used for training and how many adults were trained in program year  2003.  Our information differs from Labor’s estimates in two ways.  First,  our report indicates that 40 percent of WIA funds were used for training in  program year 2003.  We define funds used for training to include funds  spent as well as funds obligated.  As shown in the report, of the  approximately $929 million used for training in program year 2003, about  $724 million was actually spent and another $205 million was obligated.   Second, Labor’s estimate of 200,000 adults enrolled in training includes  only those adults reported in WIASRD who exited from the program.  Our  estimate of 416,000 comes directly from the local workforce areas that  provided the training and includes the total number of adults who received  training in program year 2003, including those who had not exited from the  program.  We believe our estimates of the amount of WIA funds used for  training and the number of adults trained represent a more complete and  accurate picture than Labor’s estimates because we included all funds  used for training in program year 2003, whether they were spent or  obligated, and counted all adults who received training in program year  2003, not just those who exited the program.
Regarding our discussion on data quality, Labor stated that it appreciates  that we recognize the steps taken to improve data quality through data  validation and noted that it has provided states with the software,  handbooks, user guides, and technical assistance necessary to develop  reports and document validation.  Labor commented that it plans to  continue supporting data validation during the transition to common  measures and is currently revising the software and related materials to  match the new reporting requirements.  In addition, Labor stated that in  the coming months it will be publishing proposed revisions to the WIASRD  in the Federal Register.  Labor also has issued guidance standardizing the  definition of “exit” for purposes of assessing program performance across  all programs implementing common measures.  Labor said that states will  begin implementing the change on July 1, 2005, and believes that this will  improve the comparability of WIA outcome data.  We commend Labor’s  efforts to improve data quality and acknowledge that these actions are a  step in the right direction to having a reporting system that contains  complete and accurate information.
Labor also provided technical comments that we incorporated where  appropriate.  Labor’s entire comments are reproduced in appendix III.
We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, relevant  congressional committees, and other interested parties and will 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.
A list of related GAO products is included at the end of this report. If you  or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-7215 or at nilsens@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of   Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Other contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in  appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: We were asked to determine (1) to what extent Workforce Investment Act  (WIA) funds have been used for training, (2) how local workforce  investment boards have managed the use of Individual Training Accounts  (ITA) and what challenges they have encountered, and (3) what is known  at the national level about the outcomes of those receiving training. To  address these issues, we conducted a Web-based survey of all local  workforce investment boards in the 50 states, the District of Columbia,  and Puerto Rico, and visited eight local boards located in 4 states. We  conducted our work from June 2004 to May 2005 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Web-Based Survey
paragraphs: To determine the extent to which program year 2003 WIA funds were used  for training, how local workforce boards manage ITAs, and what  challenges they have encountered, we conducted a Web-based survey of  the local workforce investment boards for the 590 local workforce  investment areas in existence in program year 2003. Program year 2003  was the most recent year for which complete data were available. The  basis for our list of local workforce investment boards was the directory  from the National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB). To view the  survey, go to www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-807SP.
Prior to administering the survey, we pretested the content and format of  the questionnaire with a number of local workforce investment boards to  determine whether (1) the survey questions were clear, (2) the terms used  were precise, (3) respondents were able to provide the financial and client  data we were seeking, and (4) the questions were unbiased. We made  changes to the content and format of the final questionnaire based on  pretest results.
The surveys were conducted using self-administered electronic  questionnaires posted on the Web. We received completed surveys from  428 boards (a 73 percent response rate).
We attempted to assess the reliability of the responses to survey questions  that asked for quantitative data relating to WIA funds used for training and  numbers of clients served. We included questions in the survey that asked  whether or not the local board carried out certain practices or procedures  to ensure that databases or data systems used to produce the financial and  client information we asked for were in fact reliable. These questions  asked (1) if there were written procedures that defined data elements or  specified how data were collected; (2) if routine internal reviews of data  were conducted to check for errors in completeness, accuracy, or  reasonableness; (3) if periodic monitoring or audits of the data were  conducted to check for errors in completeness, accuracy, or  reasonableness; and (4) whether or not routine quality control procedures  were in place such as data verification to source documents or computer  edit checks. We asked these four questions separately for both the  financial data and the client data obtained in the survey. If the local area  responded that it had used at least two of the four practices or procedures  to monitor the quality of the financial and participant data provided in  their survey, we either accepted the responses or called for clarification,  depending on which procedures were used. If the local board responded  that three or four of these practices or procedures were not used for either  financial or client data, we did not use those data. In cases where the local  board responded that it was not sure whether these practices or  procedures had been carried out or did not answer three or more of the  four questions, we telephoned the board to try to determine whether or  not it had actually carried out these practices or procedures. In cases  where we determined that the data actually did meet our data reliability  criteria, based on these telephone calls, we accepted the responses. On the  basis of the criteria, we accepted the financial data for all 428 of the  completed surveys and we accepted the participant data for 425 of the  completed surveys. In the three cases where we did not accept the  participant data, we did retain and use responses from other sections of  the survey. In addition to including the questions on data reliability in the  survey, we also checked the consistency of responses on a number of  survey questions that asked for numeric data. On the basis of these  consistency checks, some responses were dropped from our analysis.
We generated estimates to the population of 590 boards by treating the 428  responding boards as a simple random sample. We chose to treat the 428  responding boards as a simple random sample from the population of 590  based on an analysis of the differences between the responding boards  and the nonresponding boards.
To determine if there were any significant differences between the  responding boards and the nonresponding boards, we contacted officials  in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to obtain the  number of unemployed individuals for each local area. We obtained this  number for all 590 boards in the population. We used this information to  determine whether sample-based estimates of this characteristic  generated from the responding boards compared favorably with the  known population values. The known population value of the number of  unemployed individuals fell within the 95 percent confidence interval  surrounding the sample-based estimate. On the basis of these results, and  our assessment that the number of unemployed individuals is correlated  with key items we were estimating, we concluded that treating the 428  responding boards as a simple random sample is not likely to introduce  significant bias into estimates. Some of the 428 responding boards did not  provide responses to all of the items in the survey. To improve our  estimates, we employed a nearest neighbor hot deck imputation  methodology to account for nonresponse of numerical items.
Because we decided to treat the respondents as a simple random sample  of boards, our results are estimates of the population of 590 boards and  thus are subject to sampling errors that are associated with samples of this  size and type. Our confidence in the precision of the results from this  sample is expressed in 95 percent confidence intervals, which are  expected to include the actual results in 95 percent of samples of this type.  We calculated confidence intervals based on methods that are appropriate  for a simple random sample. All percentage estimates have margins of  error of plus or minus 5 percentage points or less. All numerical estimates  other than percentages have relative margins of error of plus or minus 15  percent or less, except for those shown in table 4. For example, an  estimate of $1,000,000 with a relative margin of error of plus or minus 15  percent would have a 95 percent confidence interval of $850,000 to  $1,150,000.
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce other  kinds of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For  example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in the  sources of information that are available to respondents, or in how the  data are entered into a database or were analyzed can introduce unwanted  variability into the survey results. We took steps in the development of the  questionnaire, the data collection, and the data analysis to minimize these  nonsampling errors. For example, social science survey specialists  designed the questionnaire in collaboration with GAO staff with subject  matter expertise. Then, the draft questionnaire was pretested with a  number of local boards to ensure that the questions were relevant, clearly  stated, and easy to comprehend. As mentioned above, we included  additional questions to determine whether certain practices or procedures  had been carried out on the financial and client data. When the data were  analyzed, a second, independent analyst checked all computer programs.
Since this was a Web-based survey, respondents entered their answers  directly into the electronic questionnaire. This eliminated the need to have  the data keyed into a database, thus removing an additional source of  error.
section_title: Site Visits
paragraphs: We used two criteria in selecting site visit locations. First, we stratified the  48 continental states and the District of Columbia into four categories  according to amount of program year 2003 adult and dislocated worker  formula funds to reflect states with varying funding sizes. The four  categories were less than $10 million, $10 million to $25 million, over $25  million to $50 million, and over $50 million. We selected one from each  category. Second, we chose geographically dispersed states to help  illuminate regional differences in implementing ITAs. From within each  state, we judgmentally selected two local boards to provide a mix of urban  and rural areas (see table 5).
At each location visited, we obtained general information about the local  workforce area and additional information on WIA funding, local training  policies implemented, challenges encountered, innovative practices, and  reliability of data systems. To increase our confidence in the reliability of  the data we gathered from our survey, we interviewed each local board we  visited about data monitoring and quality control procedures and policies  with respect to their financial and participant databases. We also asked the  local boards we visited to show us samples of records in their databases  and to trace them to source documents. We generally found their data  quality processes and procedures to be sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of our report.
section_title: Assessment of WIASRD
paragraphs: To determine whether the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record  Data (WIASRD) might be a viable source of data for outcomes of training  participants, we reviewed our prior reports about the reliability of the  WIASRD data and a report by Labor’s Office of the Inspector General on  WIA performance outcomes. We also performed electronic tests of the  program year 2003 WIASRD data to check for missing values. The  variables analyzed included employment after first, third, and fifth  quarters after exit quarter, and type of credential attained. Missing data  due to unemployment insurance wage data lags were taken under  consideration.  On the basis of our analysis, we determined that the  WIASRD data elements pertinent to this report were not sufficiently  reliable for our purposes. We have discussed the data reliability issues  throughout the body of the report.
section_title: Appendix II: Summary of Adult and Dislocated Worker Formula Funds for Program Year 2003
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Joan Mahagan, Assistant Director, and Wayne Sylvia, Analyst-in-Charge,  managed all aspects of the assignment. Rebecca Woiwode made  significant contributions to this report in all aspects of the work. In  addition, Amanda Mackison and Matthew Saradjian assisted in the survey  design, data collection, and report writing; Stuart Kaufman and Shana  Wallace assisted in the design of the national survey and the assessment of  the survey’s data reliability; James Ashley and Sidney Schwartz assisted in  data projections of the national survey; Grant Mallie and Stefanie Bdzusek  assisted in analyzing the national survey responses; Joan Vogel assisted in  assessing the data reliability of the WIASRD data; Jessica Botsford and  Richard Burkard provided legal support; and Corinna Nicolaou provided  writing assistance.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative  Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting  Requirements. GAO-05-539.Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied  with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address  Employers’ Needs. GAO-05-259. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2005.
Public Community Colleges And Technical Schools: Most Schools Use  Both Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development.   GAO-05-04. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 18, 2004.
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms Have Accelerated Training  Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges Remain. GAO-04-1012.  Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2004.
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.
National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve  Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant  Awards and Improve Data. GAO-04-496. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve  Quality of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services.  GAO-04-308. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2004.
National Emergency Grants: Services to Dislocated Workers Hampered  by Delays in Grant Awards, but Labor Is Initiating Actions to Improve  Grant Award Process. GAO-04-222. Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 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 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: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for  Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO-03-636. Washington, D.C.:  April 25, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Interim Report on Status of Spending and  States’ Available Funds. GAO-02-1074. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 5, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding  Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274.  Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns  over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2001.