Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies
Published: 2011-01-13T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Federally funded employment and training programs play an important role in helping job seekers obtain employment. The Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services (HHS) largely administer these programs. GAO's objectives were to determine: (1) whether the number of federal employment and training programs and funding for them have changed since our 2003 report, (2) what kinds of outcome measures the programs use and what is known about program effectiveness, (3) the extent to which the programs provide similar services to similar populations, (4) the extent to which duplication may exist among selected large programs, and (5) what options exist for increasing efficiencies among these programs. To address these objectives, GAO searched federal program lists, surveyed federal agency officials, reviewed relevant reports and studies, and interviewed officials in selected states.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), both the number of--and funding for--federal employment and training programs have increased since our 2003 report, but little is known about the effectiveness of most programs. In fiscal year 2009, 9 federal agencies spent approximately $18 billion to administer 47 programs--an increase of 3 programs and roughly $5 billion since our 2003 report. This increase is due to temporary Recovery Act funding. Nearly all programs track multiple outcome measures, but only five programs have had an impact study completed since 2004 to assess whether outcomes resulted from the program and not some other cause. Almost all federal employment and training programs, including those with broader missions such as multipurpose block grants, overlap with at least one other program in that they provide similar services to similar populations. These programs most commonly target Native Americans, veterans, and youth, and some require participants to be economically disadvantaged. Although the extent to which individuals receive the same employment and training services from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Employment Service (ES), and Workforce Investment Act Adult (WIA Adult) programs is unknown, the programs maintain separate administrative structures to provide some of the same services, such as job search assistance, to low-income individuals. Agency officials acknowledged that greater administrative efficiencies could be achieved in delivering these services, but said factors, such as the number of clients that any one-stop center can serve and one-stops' proximity to clients, particularly in rural areas, could warrant having multiple entities provide the same services. Options that may increase efficiencies include colocating services and consolidating administrative structures, but implementation may pose challenges. While WIA Adult and ES services are generally colocated in one-stop centers, TANF employment services are colocated in one-stops to a lesser extent. Florida, Texas, and Utah have consolidated their welfare and workforce agencies, and state officials said this reduced costs and improved services, but they could not provide a dollar figure for cost savings. An obstacle to further progress in achieving greater administrative efficiencies is that little information is available about the strategies and results of such initiatives. In addition, little is known about the incentives states and localities have to undertake such initiatives and whether additional incentives may be needed. Labor and HHS should disseminate information about state efforts to consolidate administrative structures and colocate services and, as warranted, identify options for increasing incentives to undertake these initiatives. In their comments, Labor and HHS agreed that they should disseminate this information.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Federally funded employment and training programs serve an important  role in our society by helping job seekers enhance their job skills, identify  job opportunities, and obtain employment. Many federal agencies  administer these programs, including the Departments of Labor,  Education, and Health and Human Services (HHS). In the 1990s, we issued  a series of reports that raised questions about the efficiency and  effectiveness of the federally funded employment and training system and  concluded that a structural overhaul and consolidation of these programs  were needed. In 1998, partly in response to concerns regarding the  fragmented employment and training system, Congress passed the  Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). One of WIA’s primary features is  to foster closer coordination of employment and training programs by  requiring a centralized service delivery system through one-stop centers;  however, only a few employment and training programs have been  consolidated. In 2000 and 2003, we issued reports that focused on those  programs whose primary purpose was employment and training, and we  provided information on the size of these programs and overlap among  them. Because of higher unemployment rates during these challenging  economic times and the potential reauthorization of WIA, you asked us to  update the 2003 study, examine changes to these programs under the  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), and  report on what is known about the programs’ performance.
Our objectives were to determine: (1) whether the number of federal  employment and training programs and funding for them have changed  since our 2003 report, (2) what kinds of outcome measures the programs  use and what is known about program effectiveness, (3) the extent to  which the programs provide similar services to similar populations, (4) the  extent to which duplication may exist among selected large programs, and  (5) what options exist for increasing efficiencies among these programs.
To address the first three objectives, we identified employment and  training programs by consulting with federal agency officials, searching  the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA), and reviewing the  Recovery Act. In searching for programs, we used the same definition of  an employment and training program as used in the two most recent GAO  reports—a program that is specifically designed to enhance the specific  job skills of individuals in order to increase their employability, identify  job opportunities, and/or help job seekers obtain employment. We  excluded certain programs that did not meet this definition, did not  provide employment and training services, or were components of other  employment and training programs. We included programs with broader  missions if a primary purpose of the program was to provide employment  and training assistance, including multipurpose block grants and career  and technical education programs. Once we developed the list of  programs, we vetted it with officials in each agency. We then surveyed  agency officials to gather detailed information about the programs. Our  survey questions asked officials to identify the programs’ appropriations,  the amount of funds used to provide employment and training services,  whether the programs were modified by the Recovery Act, how many  individuals were served by the programs, and the target populations and  services associated with each program. Our questionnaire also asked  program officials to identify program outcome measures and any studies  of program performance published since 2004, characterize the type of  study, and provide a copy of the study or a citation. We then reviewed the  studies’ methodologies to determine whether they met the definition of an  impact study.
To address objectives four and five, we used findings from our prior work  to identify programs that had the potential for duplication based on a high  degree of overlap and were among the largest in terms of funding  employment and training activities. Using this approach, we selected the  Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Employment  Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities (ES), and Workforce Investment  Act Adult (WIA Adult) programs for further review. We reviewed financial  information and conducted interviews with federal agency officials to  determine the extent to which the programs duplicate efforts with respect  to their employment and training activities. We reviewed relevant reports  and interviewed officials from other organizations familiar with these  programs: the Center for Law and Social Policy, the American Public  Human Services Association, and the National Governors Association and  reviewed relevant reports. We also reviewed documentation and  conducted interviews with officials in Florida, Texas, and Utah, three of  the states that are considered to be the furthest along in their efforts to  consolidate the administrative structures for these and other programs.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 through  January 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives. For more details on our  scope and methodology, see appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In 1998, Congress passed WIA—partly in response to concerns about  inefficiencies in federal employment and training programs. WIA repealed  the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), effective July 1, 2000, and  replaced JTPA programs for economically disadvantaged adults and  youths and dislocated workers with three new programs—WIA Adult, WIA  Dislocated Worker, and WIA Youth. In an effort that coordinated service  delivery for employment and training programs, WIA established one-stop  centers in all states and mandated that numerous programs provide their  services through the centers. Unlike the JTPA adult program, WIA  imposes no income eligibility requirements for adult applicants receiving  any of its “core” services, such as job search assistance and employment  counseling and assessment. Any person visiting a one-stop center may  look for a job, receive career development services, and gain access to a  range of vocational education programs. While WIA consolidated the JTPA  youth programs and strengthened the service delivery of key workforce  development programs, most employment and training programs remain  separately funded and continue to be operated by various agencies.
We have previously issued reports on overlap in multiple employment and  training programs. During the 1990s, we issued a series of reports that  documented program overlap among federally funded employment and  training programs and identified areas where inefficiencies might result.  We reported that overlap among federally funded employment and training  programs raised questions about the efficient and effective use of  resources. We also reported that program overlap might hinder people  from seeking assistance and frustrate employers and program  administrators. In 2000 and 2003, we reviewed the workforce development  system and identified federally funded employment and training programs  for which a key program goal was providing employment and training  assistance. Our 2003 report identified 44 programs administered by nine  federal agencies that provided a range of employment and training  services. While many of the programs were the same as those included in  the 2000 report, 10 programs were newly identified and 6 previously  identified programs had been discontinued since 2000.
section_title: Since Our 2003 Report, the Number of Federal Employment and Training Programs and Funding for Them Have Increased Due to the Recovery Act
paragraphs: The number of employment and training programs and their funding have  increased since our 2003 report when we last reported on them. For  fiscal year 2009, we identified 47 employment and training programs  administered across nine agencies (see figure 1). Together, these programs  spent approximately $18 billion on employment and training services in  fiscal year 2009, according to our survey data. This is an increase of 3  programs and about $5 billion from our 2003 report. Adjusting for  inflation, the amount of the increase is about $2 billion. We estimate based  on survey responses that this increase is likely due to temporary funding  from the Recovery Act for 14 of the 47 programs we identified (see figure  2). In addition to increasing funding for existing programs, the Recovery  Act also created 3 new programs and modified several existing programs’  target population groups and eligibility requirements, according to agency  officials. For example, the Recovery Act modified the Trade Adjustment  Assistance program by expanding group eligibility to include certain  dislocated service workers who were impacted by foreign trade.
Officials from most programs reported using almost all their funds for  employment and training, although some programs with broader goals,  including multipurpose block grants, used lesser amounts. Twenty-seven  programs estimated that they used 90 percent or more of their fiscal year  2009 appropriation on employment and training services. Fifteen of these  programs reported that they used 100 percent of their funds on  employment and training services. Some programs that used less than 90  percent of their fiscal year 2009 appropriations on employment and  training services may have broader goals (see table 1). For example,  across all programs, the TANF program used the lowest percentage of its  appropriations on employment and training activities, about 8 percent.  This is not surprising, given that employment is only one aspect of the  TANF program, which has several broad social service goals, including  providing cash assistance to low-income families with children. However,  the amount TANF spends on employment and training activities is among  the largest of the programs we surveyed. In addition, Education officials  stated that their career and technical education programs emphasize  education, as opposed to employment and training.
Our survey data showed that 7 programs accounted for about three- fourths of the $18 billion spent on employment and training services in  fiscal year 2009 (see figure 3). The largest of the 7, Rehabilitation  Services—Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States, operated by  Education, used about $3 billion in fiscal year 2009 to fund employment  and training services for individuals with disabilities. The other 6 programs  from this group are administered by Labor and HHS. The remaining one- fourth of the amount spent on employment and training in fiscal year 2009  was spent by the remaining programs.
WIA Youth Activities (Labor)
TANF (HHS)
Job Corps (Labor)
WIA Adult Program (Labor)
Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities (Labor)
Our survey data showed that most participants received employment and  training services through one of two programs: Employment  Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities and the WIA Adult Program.  These programs accounted for about 77 percent of the total number of  participants served across all programs. Each of these programs reported  serving more than 1 million individuals. In contrast to these larger  programs, 7 programs each reported serving fewer than 5,000 individuals.
See appendix IV for a detailed list of the number of individuals served by  each employment and training program.
section_title: Nearly All Programs Track Multiple Outcome Measures, but Little is Known about Program Effectiveness
paragraphs: Almost all programs tracked multiple outcome measures related to  employment and training, and many programs tracked similar measures.  Forty-one of the 47 programs tracked at least three outcome measures in  fiscal year 2009, according to officials. The most frequently tracked  outcome measure was “entered employment”—the number of program  participants who found jobs (see table 2). Many programs also tracked  “employment retention” and “wage gain or change.” These are the types of  measures developed under the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB)  common measures initiative, which sought to unify definitions for  performance across programs with similar goals. Three programs did not  track any outcome measures at the federal level in fiscal year 2009. For a  detailed list of outcome measures tracked by federal employment and  training programs, see appendix V.
In addition, officials from 4 of the 14 programs that received Recovery Act  funding in fiscal year 2009 reported that the Act modified the outcome  measures tracked by their programs. However, these modifications  generally applied only to the outcomes for participants in activities funded  by the Act. For example, a Job Corps official noted that the program is  required to track the number of “green graduates” who complete Recovery  Act-funded “green training” for jobs in industries such as renewable  resources and green construction.
Little is known about the effectiveness of the employment and training  programs we identified because only 5 reported demonstrating whether  outcomes can be attributed to the program through an impact study, and  about half of all the programs have not had a performance review since  2004. Impact studies, which many researchers consider to be the best  method for determining the extent to which a program is causing  participant outcomes, can be difficult and expensive to conduct, as they  take steps to examine what would have happened in the absence of a  program to isolate its impact from other factors. Based on our survey of  agency officials, we determined that only 5 of the 47 programs have had  impact studies that assess whether the program is responsible for  improved employment outcomes (see appendix VI). The five impact  studies generally found that the effects of participation were not  consistent across programs, with only some demonstrating positive  impacts that tended to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term  impacts. For example, while we have previously reported that a  considerable body of research has suggested that welfare-to-work  programs can effectively increase employment entry and reduce welfare  receipt, a more recent study cited by a TANF program official found  services targeted at TANF recipients to be largely ineffective in producing  positive employment retention and advancement outcomes and, where  impacts were found, they tended to be substantively small, with many  families remaining in poverty. A study of the WIA Adult program found  the program to have shown positive impacts up to 4 years after participant  entry, but noted that the magnitude of this effect could have been due to  the selection of applicants with greater income prior to participation and  better job prospects.
Officials from the remaining 42 programs cited other types of studies or no  studies at all. Officials from 19 of these programs reported that, since 2004,  some other type of review or study had been conducted to evaluate their  program’s performance with respect to employment and training activities.  These evaluations included assessments by OMB’s Program Assessment  Rating Tool (PART) and nonimpact studies. Officials from 23 of the 47  programs did not identify a study of any kind that assessed program  performance since 2004. However, agencies may have impact studies  currently under way. For example, Labor is conducting an impact  evaluation of WIA services, to be completed in 2015.
section_title: Almost All Programs Overlap with at Least One Other Program, but Differences May Exist in Eligibility, Objectives, and Service Delivery
paragraphs: All but 3 of the programs we surveyed overlap with at least 1 other  program, in that they provide at least one similar service to a similar  population. Some of these overlapping programs serve multiple  population groups, while others target specific populations. For the  population groups served by these programs and the services they provide,  see appendixes VII, VIII, and IX. In addition, some overlapping programs  require participants to be economically disadvantaged. Even when  programs overlap, the services they provide and the populations they  serve may differ in meaningful ways.
All 10 programs that serve multiple groups overlap with another program.  For example, a variety of groups—including both employed and  unemployed individuals—can receive employment counseling and  assessment, job readiness skills training, and occupational or vocational  training from three different programs: the Career and Technical  Education—Basic Grants to States program, the Community-Based Job  Training Grants program, and the H-1B Job Training Grants program. In  addition, 3 of the programs that serve multiple groups require participants  to be economically disadvantaged.
Thirty-four of the 37 programs that serve a primary target population  overlap with another program. In addition, nine of these require  participants to be economically disadvantaged. The target populations  being served by the most programs are Native Americans, veterans, and  youth. For example, all 8 programs that target Native Americans provide  seven similar types of employment and training services (see figure 4).  According to agency officials, 4 of these programs for Native Americans  spent a total of about $93 million on employment and training services in  fiscal year 2009, and 5 of them served a total of about 55,000 participants  in the most recent year for which data were available.
Similarly, five of the six programs that target veterans provide seven  similar types of employment and training services (see figure 5).  According to agency officials, these six programs spent nearly $1.1 billion  on employment and training services in fiscal year 2009, and served about  823,000 participants in the most recent year for which data were available.
The five programs that target youth provide seven similar types of  employment and training services (see figure 6). According to agency  officials, four of these programs spent nearly $4.1 billion on employment  and training services in fiscal year 2009, and all five programs served about  360,000 participants in the most recent year for which data were  available.
Despite this overlap, some individuals within a population group may be  eligible for one program, but not another because program eligibility  criteria differ. For example, one of the programs targeting Native  Americans serves only disabled Native Americans residing on or near a  federal or state reservation, and another program serves only Native  Hawaiians. Similarly, one of the veterans programs serves only homeless  veterans, and another is specifically targeted to servicemembers (and their  spouses) who are near to retirement or separation from the military.
Some overlapping programs also have slightly different objectives. For  example, while the Community-Based Job Training Grants and H-1B Job  Training Grants programs aim to prepare workers for careers in high- growth industries, the Career and Technical Education—Basic Grants to  States program has as its purpose to more fully develop the academic,  career, and technical skills of secondary and postsecondary students who  enroll in career and technical education programs. Programs that overlap  may also provide similar types of services in different ways. The Job Corps  program, for example, provides academic instruction and job training in a  variety of fields to at-risk youth who live at federally funded campuses,  while the YouthBuild program provides academic instruction and job  training in construction to disadvantaged youth in their own communities.
Officials from 27 of the 47 programs reported that their agencies have  coordinated efforts with other federal agencies that provide similar  services to similar populations. For example, the Departments of Labor  and Health and Human Services issued a joint letter encouraging state- administered youth programs to partner together using Recovery Act  funds to promote subsidized employment opportunities. In addition, an  official from the Department of the Interior reported that the agency  works with Labor and HHS to coordinate programs for Native Americans.  Under law, Native American tribes are allowed significant flexibility to  combine funding from multiple programs. An official from an Education  program that serves incarcerated individuals noted that representatives  from the Departments of Education, Labor, and Justice participate in a  federal work group on offender workforce development, and have jointly  sponsored a national conference on this topic. Similarly, an official from  Labor’s Reintegration of Ex-Offenders program stated that the agency  coordinates with Justice to design and operate the program’s adult ex- offender grants.
section_title: While the Extent to Which Individuals Receive the Same Services From Multiple Programs is Unknown, the TANF, ES, and WIA Adult Programs Maintain Separate Administrative Structures to Provide Some of the Same Services
paragraphs: The TANF, ES, and WIA Adult programs provide some of the same  employment and training services to low-income individuals, despite  differences between the programs. Although the extent to which  individuals receive the same services from more than one of these  programs is unknown, the programs maintain separate administrative  structures to provide some of the same services. Labor and HHS officials  acknowledged that greater efficiencies could be achieved in delivering  employment and training services through these programs, but said they  do not believe that these programs are duplicative.
The TANF, ES, and WIA Adult programs provide some of the same  employment and training services to low-income individuals, despite  differences in the programs’ overall goals and the range of services they  provide. In our interviews with Labor and HHS officials, they  acknowledged that low-income individuals are eligible to receive some of  the same employment and training services—including skills assessment,  job search, and job referral—from both the TANF and WIA Adult  programs. In addition, any individual, including low-income individuals,  can receive job search and job referral services from the ES program. Our  survey results also indicate that these three programs provide some of the  same services (see figure 7). While the TANF program serves low-income  families with children, the ES and WIA Adult programs serve all adults,  including low-income individuals. Specifically, the WIA Adult program  gives priority for intensive and training services to recipients of public  assistance and other low-income individuals when program funds are  limited. All three programs share a common goal of helping individuals  secure employment, and the TANF and WIA Adult programs also aim to  reduce welfare dependency. However, employment is only one aspect of  the TANF program, which also has three other broad social service goals:  to assist needy families so that children can generally be cared for in their  own homes, to reduce and prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and to  encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. As a  result, TANF provides a wide range of other services beyond employment  and training, including cash assistance. To reduce dependency, TANF  requires many cash assistance recipients to participate in work activities  such as subsidized employment, on-the-job training, or community  service.
Recent PART reviews of these programs had similar findings regarding the  programs’ commonalities. The most recent PART reviews of the ES and  WIA Adult programs—conducted in 2004 and 2005, respectively—also  found that these programs provide some of the same services, and the WIA  Adult review found that the program duplicates some job training services  offered by TANF. The most recent PART review of the TANF program,  conducted in 2005, similarly noted that states may choose to spend TANF  funds on employment services that mirror those provided under WIA.
However, the extent to which individuals receive the same employment  and training services from more than one of these programs is unknown.  Labor officials estimated that in program year 2008 approximately 4.5  percent of all WIA Adult participants who received training—about 4,500  of the nearly 100,000 participants who exited the program—were also  receiving TANF. However, this likely underestimated the number of TANF  recipients served by the WIA Adult program, as the program collects  information on TANF receipt only if participants receive intensive or  training services. In addition, according to Labor officials, WIA Adult  participants may choose not to identify themselves as TANF recipients. It  is also unclear whether the WIA Adult participants who self-identify as  TANF recipients have received TANF employment and training services or  other TANF services. Further, HHS officials told us that data are not  available at the federal level on the total number of individuals who  receive TANF employment and training services because HHS lacks the  legal authority to require such reporting. The TANF program requires  states to report data on recipients of TANF assistance who participate in  work activities as defined by program regulations, but HHS lacks the legal  authority to require states to report data on individuals who participate in  work activities but do not receive such assistance. Officials noted that  laws including the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity  Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)—the legislation that created the  TANF program—limits the information that states must report to HHS.
The TANF, ES, and WIA Adult programs maintain separate administrative  structures to provide some of the same services to low-income individuals.  At the federal level, the TANF program is administered by the Department  of Health and Human Services, and the ES and WIA Adult programs are  administered by the Department of Labor. At the state level, the TANF  program is typically administered by the state human services or welfare  agency, and the ES and WIA Adult programs are typically administered by  the state workforce agency. By regulation, ES services must be provided  by state employees. At the local level, WIA regulations require at least  one comprehensive one-stop center to be located in every local workforce  investment area. These areas may have the same boundaries as counties,  may be multicounty, or may be within and across county lines. Similarly,  every county typically has a TANF office. TANF employment and training  services may be delivered at TANF offices, in one-stop centers, or through  contracts with for-profit or nonprofit organizations, according to HHS  officials. In one-stop centers, ES staff provide job search and other  services to ES customers, while WIA staff provide job search and other  services to WIA Adult customers.
Labor and HHS officials acknowledged that greater efficiencies could be  achieved in delivering employment and training services through the  TANF, ES, and WIA Adult programs. A 2005 Labor-commissioned study  stated that operating separate workforce programs under WIA and TANF  duplicates efforts. In interviews, Labor officials acknowledged that  simplifying programs’ administrative structures, while not without  challenges, may allow some states and localities to administer programs  more efficiently. Even so, officials from both agencies emphasized that  under current law states and localities decide how best to deliver services.  For example, since TANF is a block grant program, states have discretion  to deliver services under the type of administrative structure they choose,  and some states may choose more efficient structures than others.
Nonetheless, HHS and Labor officials said they do not believe that these  programs are duplicative. HHS officials said that capacity, geography, and  the unique needs of TANF clients could warrant having multiple entities  providing the same services, even if they are separately administered. They  noted that one-stop centers may not have the staff, space, or desire to  serve TANF clients; they may be inconveniently located, especially in  predominantly rural states; and they may not be able to address TANF  clients’ multiple needs. HHS officials added that although some of the  employment and training services delivered by the TANF, ES, and WIA  Adult programs at the local level to eligible clients are the same, the ways  services are delivered and the services themselves can vary subtly with  each locality. Labor officials said they have focused on integrating services  to meet clients’ needs and affording states flexibility to respond to local  needs rather than only on program efficiency. Labor officials also noted  that the ES and WIA Adult programs are specific funding streams and as a  result, they are unlikely to fund the same services for the same individuals.  For example, one-stop centers typically use ES funding to provide core  services, such as job search and job referrals, while they typically use WIA  Adult funding to provide intensive and training services. States are  required by WIA to attest in plans they provide to Labor that their ES and  WIA programs have agreements in place to coordinate service delivery  across the two programs.
section_title: Options for Increasing Efficiencies Include Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures, but Implementation Can Be Challenging
subsections: section_title: Colocating Services
paragraphs: Colocating the employment and training services provided by the TANF,  ES, and WIA Adult programs may increase administrative efficiencies. WIA  requires numerous federally funded workforce development programs,  including the ES and WIA Adult programs, to provide their services  through the one-stop system. Programs may be colocated within one-stop  centers, electronically linked, or linked through referrals. While WIA does  not require TANF employment and training services to be provided  through one-stop centers, states and localities have the option to include  TANF as a partner in their one-stop systems. We have previously  reported that colocating services—specifically, providing services from  different programs in the same physical location—can result in improved  communication among programs, improved delivery of services for clients,  and elimination of duplication. While colocating services does not  guarantee efficiency improvements, it affords the potential for sharing  resources and cross-training staff, and may lead, in some cases, to the  consolidation of administrative systems, such as information technology  systems. A 2004 study commissioned by HHS found that successful  coordination between WIA programs and the TANF program is promoted  when WIA and TANF staffs are colocated or communicate regularly to  discuss specific cases and policies, and when program management  functions, case management functions, and administrative systems are  shared across agencies.
Labor and HHS officials told us that they encourage states to consider  colocating TANF employment and training services with ES and WIA  Adult services in one-stop centers, but said that they leave these decisions  up to states. While Labor’s policy is that all mandatory one-stop partner  programs—including the ES and WIA Adult programs—should be  physically colocated in one-stop centers to the extent possible, neither  Labor nor HHS currently has a policy in place that specifically promotes  the colocation of TANF employment and training services in one-stop  centers. According to officials, Labor’s policy is that colocation is one of  multiple means for achieving service integration.
While ES and WIA Adult services are generally colocated in one-stop  centers, the colocation of TANF employment and training services in one- stop centers is not as widespread. We reported in 2007 that nearly all  states provided ES and WIA Adult services on site in the majority of their  one-stop centers, although nine states also operated at least one  standalone ES office that was unaffiliated with the one-stop system. In  the same 2007 report, we found that 30 states provided the TANF program  on site at a typical comprehensive one-stop center. These states  accounted for 57 percent of the comprehensive one-stop centers  nationwide (see table 3). The remaining 20 states, where the TANF  program was not available on site at a typical comprehensive one-stop  center, accounted for 43 percent of comprehensive one-stop centers. This  is the most recent available data, as Labor and HHS officials told us that  they do not routinely collect data on the extent to which TANF services  are colocated in one-stop centers nationwide, and HHS lacks the authority  to require states to routinely report this information.
Labor and HHS officials said that states and localities may face challenges  to colocating TANF employment and training services in one-stop centers.  Obstacles to colocation may include those raised earlier, such as capacity  and geography, but may also include leases, differing program cultures,  the need for partner programs to help fund the operating costs of one-stop  centers, and trade-offs regarding the services with which TANF is  colocated. Specifically, HHS officials told us that states and localities may  have multiyear rental contracts for office space and may not have room to  house additional staff. In addition, Labor and HHS officials said that  differences between the client service philosophies of the TANF program  and the ES and WIA Adult programs may present challenges to colocation.  HHS officials noted that the TANF program takes a more holistic approach  to helping individuals become self-sufficient by addressing the variety of  needs that may affect their ability to obtain employment, such as child  care and transportation. The need for partner programs to fund one-stop  center operating costs may also be a challenge to colocation. When TANF  employment and training services are colocated in one-stop centers, TANF  may be expected to contribute to these operating costs, in addition to  paying operating costs associated with providing other TANF services in  other locations.
Finally, HHS officials noted that when TANF employment and training  services are not colocated in one-stop centers, they are typically colocated  with other services for low-income families, such as SNAP, formerly  known as the Food Stamp Program, and Medicaid. Officials acknowledged  that colocating TANF employment and training services in one-stop  centers may mean that they are no longer colocated with these other  services, although Florida, Texas, and Utah provide SNAP services  through one-stops along with TANF services, and Utah also provides  Medicaid through one-stops. Officials said that in states where this is not  the case, the potential trade-off would need to be considered.
Legislative proposals to make TANF a mandatory partner in the one-stop  system have been introduced but have not been made into law. In the  109th Congress, the WIA reauthorization bills passed by the House and the  Senate included provisions to make TANF a mandatory partner, which  would have required TANF employment and training services to be  provided through one-stop centers nationwide. However, WIA has not yet  been reauthorized, and according to Labor officials, the Administration  has not taken a position on whether TANF should be a mandatory partner.  Nevertheless, officials told us that about half of states have made TANF a  partner in their one-stop systems. In addition, about half of states used  TANF funds to pay for a portion of their one-stop center infrastructure  costs in program year 2005.
section_title: Consolidating Administrative Structures
paragraphs: Consolidating the administrative structures of the TANF, ES, and WIA  Adult programs may increase efficiencies and reduce costs. However, we  found that data on the cost savings associated with such consolidation  initiatives are not readily available. Florida, Texas, and Utah have  consolidated the state workforce and welfare agencies that administer the  TANF, ES, and WIA Adult programs, among other programs. In Utah, the  workforce agency administers the TANF program in its entirety. In Florida  and Texas, the workforce agencies administer only that part of TANF  related to employment and training services.
In all three states, the one-stop centers serve as portals to a range of social  services, including TANF. Officials from these three states told us that  consolidating agencies led to cost savings through the reduction of staff  and facilities. For example, a Utah official said that the state reduced the  number of buildings in which employment and training services were  provided from 104 to 34. According to a Texas official, Texas also  privatized 3,000 full-time staff equivalents (FTE) at the local level, which  reduced the pension, retirement, and insurance costs that had previously  been associated with these state positions. Officials in the three states,  however, could not provide a dollar figure for the cost savings that  resulted from consolidation. Additionally, Labor and HHS officials told us  that reliable data are not available to compare the states’ costs for serving  TANF, ES, and WIA Adult participants with average costs nationwide.  These three programs do not require states to report data on costs per  participant, and the state officials we spoke with said that the data they  could provide would not be comparable with other states.
State officials also told us that consolidation improved the quality of  services for participants in the WIA Adult and TANF programs. An official  in Utah noted the consolidation allowed job seekers to apply for  assistance they had not considered in the past; allowed employment  counselors to cluster services that made sense for the client; and allowed  clients to experience seamless service delivery. These benefits reflected  what the official said was one of the visions of consolidation: having one  employment plan per client, rather than multiple employment plans for  clients served by multiple programs. While Florida officials acknowledged  that a subset of TANF clients have significant barriers to employment— such as mental health issues—that one-stop centers may not be well  equipped to address, officials said that the one-stops in their state are able  to address the employment and training needs of the majority of TANF  clients. When asked about the quality of the TANF and workforce  programs in Florida, Texas, and Utah, Labor officials were not aware of  any performance problems in these programs and added that they view all  three states as forerunners in program improvement efforts. That said,  they noted that Utah may not be representative of other states, due to its  relatively small and homogenous population. According to HHS officials,  the three states all met federal work participation rate requirements in  2008, but there is no established means for comparing the employment  performance of state TANF programs, so it is not possible to determine  whether these states are more or less effective than other states in  accomplishing the employment goals of TANF. In addition, officials from  the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) said that Texas and Florida  may place more of an emphasis on quickly finding work for TANF clients  than other states.
Even with the benefits identified by state officials, consolidation may have  its challenges. An official in Utah noted that the reorganization of state  agencies and staff was time-consuming and costly, and it took several  years before any cost savings were realized. For example, developing a  shared database across programs increased costs temporarily. In addition,  when states consolidate their agencies, they must still follow separate  requirements for TANF and WIA. A 2004 article on service integration by  authors from CLASP and the Hudson Institute concluded that states can  take significant steps under current law to integrate TANF and WIA  services, but it also noted the difficulty in administering separate programs  with different requirements. The article specifically noted differences in  work requirements, program performance measures, and reporting  requirements, among others. A Utah official said that it was important for  program administrators to be knowledgeable about these separate  reporting requirements and processes across the multiple federal agencies  that oversee these programs. Similarly, this official said that direct service  staff needed to be knowledgeable about multiple programs and how to  allocate costs across these programs. For states that have not  consolidated their workforce and welfare agencies, not knowing what  actions are allowable under the law may present a challenge to  consolidation. According to the article on service integration, states face  some legal barriers to fully integrating TANF and WIA services, but if they  do not know what is allowable under the law, they may not always  exercise the full range of options available to them.
section_title: Greater Efficiency Could Mean More People Served
paragraphs: To the extent that colocation and consolidation would reduce  administrative costs, funds could potentially be available to serve more  clients or for other purposes. States spend a part of each program’s federal  appropriation on administration. For the TANF program, we estimate that  states spent about $160 million to administer employment and training  services in fiscal year 2009. As defined in regulation, TANF  administrative costs include costs for general program administration and  coordination, such as salaries and benefits for staff performing  administrative and coordination activities, and indirect administrative  costs that support these activities. Administrative costs do not include  salaries and benefits for staff providing program services or the direct  administrative costs associated with providing these services, such as  supplies, equipment, travel, postage, utilities, and rental and maintena of office space. According to a Labor official, the administrative costs for the WIA Adult program—defined in regulations to include costs for  general program administration and coordination, including relate d  oversight and monitoring, and excluding costs related to the directprovision of workforce investment services—were at least $56 million in  program year 2009. t  data on the administrative costs associated with the ES program, as the are not a separately identifiable cost in the legislation. Labor officials said that, on average, the agency spends about $4,000 for each WIA Adult  participant who receives training services. Depending on the re administrative costs associated with colocation and consolidation, these  funds could be used to train potentially hundreds or thousands of  additional individuals. This is particularly important for programs like the  WIA Adult program where federal funding has decreased overall from  fiscal years 1999 to 2008.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Even in the one-stop service delivery environment set forth in WIA, states  and localities have substantial flexibility in determining the administrative  structures they use to deliver employment and training services. The  TANF block grant similarly gives states and localities considerable  flexibility in delivering services, including employment and training  services. This administrative flexibility allows programs to deliver services  in a way that best meets local needs.
Program year 2009 ran from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010.  These costs do not  include Recovery Act funds, which also could have been used for administrative costs.
However, in the face of increasingly constrained budgets at both the  federal and state levels, this is an opportune time to explore options for  administrative cost savings. Our work on the WIA Adult, ES, and TANF  programs has shown that there is some duplication with regard to their  administrative structures—they maintain the means to provide some of  the same services to the same population. However, the flexibility afforded  these programs under the law allows them to take steps to integrate  services that may increase administrative efficiencies. In taking such  steps, it is important to recognize that improvements in administrative  efficiency may not necessarily result in improvements in program  effectiveness.
Given that the ES and WIA Adult programs are already colocated in most  one-stop centers, colocating TANF employment and training services with  these programs provides the most immediate opportunity for efficiency  improvements. However, achieving the potential benefits of colocation  may require states and localities to address a variety of challenges: how to  serve additional clients given the limited capacity of one-stop centers and  potential lease restrictions; how to navigate philosophical differences  between programs and address the multiple needs of TANF clients in the  one-stop center setting; how to ensure that services are geographically  accessible; whether the potential benefits of colocating TANF in one-stop  centers outweigh the potential costs of no longer colocating these services  with other services for low-income families, in some cases; and whether,  and to what extent, TANF will contribute to one-stop center operating  costs. However, these challenges are not insurmountable, given that over  half of the states offer TANF services on site at a typical one-stop center.
Similarly, consolidating the administrative structures of these programs  would potentially conserve resources and better serve customers by  providing the one-stop convenience established by WIA. Florida, Texas,  and Utah have taken the initiative to consolidate their state workforce and  welfare agencies, and report that they reduced administrative costs and  improved services for job seekers. However, consolidation is not without  challenges. In particular, states that have not yet consolidated their  workforce and welfare agencies may not know how to integrate services  in a way that is allowable under the law.
While states and localities have undertaken some potentially promising  initiatives to achieve greater administrative efficiencies, a major obstacle  to further progress on this front is that little information is available about  the strategies and results of these initiatives, including improvements to  services and reductions in costs. Thus, it is unclear to what extent  practices in these states could serve as models for others. In addition, little  is known about the incentives states and localities have to undertake such  initiatives and whether additional incentives may be needed.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To facilitate further progress by states and localities in increasing  administrative efficiencies in employment and training programs, we  recommend that the Secretaries of Labor and HHS work together to  develop and disseminate information that could inform such efforts. This  should include information about:    state initiatives to consolidate program administrative structures; and    state and local efforts to colocate new partners, such as TANF, at one-stop  centers.
Information on these topics could address challenges faced, strategies  employed, results achieved, and remaining issues. As a part of this effort,  Labor and HHS should examine the incentives for states and localities to  undertake such initiatives and, as warranted, identify options for  increasing such incentives.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, HHS,  the Interior, Justice, Labor, Veterans Affairs, and the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) with the opportunity to comment on a draft of  this report. Written comments from Education, HHS, and Labor appear in  appendixes XII, XIII, and XIV. In addition to the comments discussed  below, Education, HHS, Interior, Labor, and VA provided technical  comments that we incorporated where appropriate. Agriculture, Defense,  EPA, and Justice officials stated that they had no comments.
Labor concurred with our recommendation and said that while it  continues to work with its federal partners to ensure access to services,  more can be done to disseminate information to the workforce and social  service communities. It highlighted the uniqueness of its programs and  noted that WIA provides flexibility to states and local areas.
HHS agreed that states would benefit from the department developing and  disseminating information in accordance with our recommendation and  said it shared the view that it is important to minimize duplication,  maximize administrative efficiency, and develop service structures that  ensure that individuals in need receive appropriate and effective  employment services. HHS noted that it lacks legal authority to mandate  increased TANF-WIA coordination or to create incentives for such efforts,  cautioned against the assumption that doing so would necessarily result in  cost savings, and noted that some overlap is necessary and appropriate in  order to provide coordinated and more comprehensive services. It also  said that while there is much to learn from the experience of Florida,  Texas, and Utah, there is no evidentiary basis from which it can  confidently state that the performance of these states is either better or  worse than states with less integration. We revised the report to add  additional references to HHS’s limited legal authority and noted the  Department’s perspective on the success of states’ integration efforts.
HHS recommended that we clearly distinguish between employment and  training programs and broad, multipurpose block grants that have multiple  allowable uses, including employment and training and said that it is not  accurate to count multipurpose block grants as employment and training  programs. While we agree that multipurpose block grant programs have  uses other than employment and training, each program we included in  our study had an important component related to employment and  training and met our definition of an employment and training program. To  clarify the report, we modified it to say that multipurpose block grants  with broader missions are included in our list of programs. HHS also  recommended that the report provide data on total spending for  employment and training for a set of years, rather than only comparing  2002 to 2009, because Recovery Act spending in 2009 was a year with  exceptional circumstances in terms of funding. While we did not collect  spending data for fiscal years 2003 through 2007, our report provides  spending data for another year prior to passage of the Recovery Act— fiscal year 2008 (see figure 2). We also attributed the increase in funding  for these programs since our 2003 report to the temporary funding  provided by the Recovery Act.
In its comments, Education recommended that we exclude from the report  all programs authorized by the Perkins Act (a total of five programs)  because the primary purpose of these programs is increasing students’  academic, career, and technical skill levels. Education disagreed with our  rationale for including these programs and stated that the statutory  amendments that Congress made in 2006 during the last reauthorization  broadened the educational purposes of the Perkins Act to emphasize  placing students in further education. During the course of our data  collection, Education officials had informed us that programs met our  definition of an employment and training program, but later asked us to  remove the programs when they reviewed the draft report. While we agree  that these programs have an educational purpose, we maintain that each  of these programs meets our definition of an employment and training  program, based on information provided to us by Education. For example,  Education officials reported that the five programs provide various types  of employment and training services, including some that were categorized  as primary services, such as occupational or vocational training, or on-the- job training (see appendix IX). Education officials also reported that three  of these five programs track entered employment and all five programs  track credential attainment as outcome measures (see appendix V).
Education also recommended that for programs authorized by the Perkins  Act we delete from our report all estimates of funds used on employment  and training activities and of the number of participants who received  employment and training services. We revised the report to delete this  information because Education said the data it reported to us were not  accurate and could not be reliably estimated.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its  issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary  of Agriculture, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Education,  Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency, Secretary of Health  and Human Services, Secretary of the Interior, Attorney General, Secretary  of Labor, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and appropriate congressional  committees. This report will be made available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7215 or Sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report  are listed in appendix XV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
subsections: section_title: Program Selection
paragraphs: We identified federally funded employment and training programs by  reviewing the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA), the  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), and  interviewing agency officials. Using keywords related to employment and  training, we conducted a systematic search in the CFDA to identify  potential employment and training programs. In addition, to identify  potential employment and training programs that were expanded under  the Recovery Act, we searched the CFDA to identify programs that  received Recovery Act funding. We reviewed the Recovery Act and  interviewed agency officials to identify any other potential employment  and training programs that were not included in the CFDA. From this  search, we identified 100 potential employment and training programs. We  did not conduct a legal analysis in order to identify the programs or to  determine their objectives, requirements, or goals.
We gathered additional information about the programs identified in our  search to determine whether they should be included in our review. Using  the CFDA program listings, we gathered information about program  objectives, restrictions on the use of program funding, and program  funding levels. To gather further information to assist us in making a  determination, we reviewed program fact sheets and other relevant  information available on agency Web sites. When necessary, we also met  with agency officials to discuss programs in more detail. We limited our  initial list of 100 programs to those that are specifically designed to  enhance the specific job skills of individuals in order to increase their  employability, identify job opportunities, and/or help job seekers obtain  employment. We included programs with broader missions if a primary  purpose of the program was to provide employment and training  assistance. We excluded any programs that met one or more of the  following criteria:    Program objectives do not explicitly include helping job seekers enhance  their job skills, find job opportunities, or obtain employment.
Program does not provide employment and training services itself.
Program is small or is a component of a larger employment and training  program such as a pilot or demonstration program.
Many of the excluded programs can be grouped into the following  categories:    Economic development programs that aim to increase job opportunities  but do not provide services to individuals to enhance their job skills,  identify job opportunities, or find employment.
Programs that aim to achieve broad workforce-related goals, such as  increasing educational opportunities for minority individuals in particular  fields or improving the status of and working conditions for wage-earning  women, but do not provide employment or training services themselves.
Education programs that fund student loans for educational expenses,  initiatives for student recruitment and retention, or other student support  services.
Programs that support training for training providers, such as vocational  rehabilitation specialists who assist disabled individuals seeking  employment, or other programs that support job-specific training for  individuals who are already employed rather than provide training for the  general public.
This process led to 52 programs being initially included in our review.  Forty-nine of these programs were operational in fiscal year 2009, while 3  of them were created by Recovery Act and were not operational in fiscal  year 2009. As a result, we removed those three programs from our list.
Once our determinations were made, we sent e-mails to agency liaisons  asking them to confirm the list of programs to be included in and excluded  from our review and the names and contact information for the officials  who would be responsible for completing the questionnaire. When  requesting confirmation, we asked that the list be reviewed by the agency  office that would ultimately comment on our draft report. Agencies  confirmed our final inclusion and exclusion decisions. After deploying our  questionnaire, officials provided us with new information on two  programs—the Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Wilson/Fish program and  the Indian Job Placement—United Sioux Tribes Development Corporation  program. After reviewing this information, we determined that these  programs did not meet our definition of an employment and training  program and we excluded them from our review. In addition, Department  of Education officials said that five of their programs should be excluded  from our list, even though they had confirmed the list at the outset and  completed the questionnaire. They said the programs focused on  education and training and had broader goals than employment. We did  not exclude these programs because each one has an important  component related to employment and training and met our definition. See  Table 4 for a full list of excluded programs. At the end of this process, we  had confirmed that 47 programs met our definition and should be included  in our review.
section_title: Questionnaire
subsections: section_title: Design and Implementation
paragraphs: We developed a Web-based questionnaire to collect information on federal  employment and training programs. The questionnaire included questions  on objectives, eligibility requirements, appropriations levels, the amount of  funds used to provide employment and training services, program  services, population groups served, and outcome measures. In addition, to  gauge whether the Recovery Act modified programs, we developed  questions that asked respondents to identify the amount of appropriations  that the Recovery Act provided and whether the Recovery Act modified  program objectives, target populations, program activities, and outcome  measures.
To minimize errors arising from differences in how questions might be  interpreted and to reduce variability in responses that should be  qualitatively the same, we conducted pretests with six federal officials  over the telephone. To ensure that we obtained a variety of perspectives  on our questionnaire, we selected officials from multiple agencies within  the Departments of Education and Labor, the two departments with the  largest number of programs. Based on feedback from these pretests, we  revised the questionnaire in order to improve question clarity. For  instance, in response to a Department of Education official’s comment  that it was unclear whether our budget-related questions pertained to  federal or state funding, we modified the budget-related questions to  clarify that we were asking for information on federal funding only. We  conducted an additional pretest with budget staff from the Department of  Labor to ensure that the budget-related terms used in the questionnaire  were understandable.
After completing the pretests, we administered the survey. On June 18,  2010, we sent an e-mail announcement of the questionnaire to the agency  officials responsible for the programs selected for our review, notifying  them that our online questionnaire would be activated within a week. On  June 23, 2010, we sent a second e-mail message to officials in which we  informed them that the questionnaire was available online and provided  them with unique passwords and usernames. We made telephone calls to  officials and sent them follow-up e-mail messages, as necessary, to clarify  and gain a contextual understanding of their responses. We received  completed questionnaires from 47 programs, for a 100 percent response  rate.
For three programs that were created by the Recovery Act that were not  operational in fiscal year 2009, we sent a list of questions to officials  responsible for these programs in which we asked them to provide  information on the program objectives, the population groups that would  be served, and the types of services that would be provided.
section_title: Analysis of Responses and Data Quality
paragraphs: We used standard descriptive statistics to analyze responses to the  questionnaire. Because this was not a sample survey, there are no  sampling errors. To minimize other types of errors, commonly referred to  as nonsampling errors, and to enhance data quality, we employed  recognized survey design practices in the development of the  questionnaire and in the collection, processing, and analysis of the survey  data. For instance, as previously mentioned, we pretested the  questionnaire with federal officials to minimize errors arising from  differences in how questions might be interpreted and to reduce variability  in responses that should be qualitatively the same. We further reviewed  the survey to ensure the ordering of survey sections was appropriate and  that the questions within each section were clearly stated and easy to  comprehend. To reduce nonresponse, another source of nonsampling  error, we sent out e-mail reminder messages to encourage officials to  complete the survey. In reviewing the survey data, we performed  automated checks to identify inappropriate answers. We further reviewed  the data for missing or ambiguous responses and followed up with agency  officials when necessary to clarify their responses. For selected large  programs, we reviewed information on agency Web sites, prior GAO  reports, and pertinent regulations and laws to corroborate the budgetary  and program services information reported in the questionnaire. On the  basis of our application of recognized survey design practices and follow- up procedures, we determined that the data were of sufficient quality for  our purposes.
section_title: Overlap
paragraphs: To identify areas of overlap among employment and training programs, we  reviewed prior GAO reports and information reported by federal agency  officials in our survey. Based on our prior work, we determined that  overlap occurs when programs provide at least one similar service to a  similar population. After reviewing survey responses regarding the  primary population groups served by programs and the services they  provide, we categorized programs according to the primary population  group served and identified programs within each category that provide  similar services. In order to report the survey results in a logical and  consistent manner, we combined or expanded some of the population  group categories used in the survey and also made changes to the primary  population group served by some programs.
section_title: Duplication
paragraphs: To identify areas of potential duplication across programs, we applied a  multiphase selection process to identify a few programs for more in-depth  analysis. The starting point of the selection process was the assumption  that the potential for duplication is greatest when programs have similar  eligibility requirements and provide similar services to the same  population groups to achieve similar objectives. First, we categorized  programs according to the primary population group served and consulted  program descriptions from the CFDA to select those programs from each  category that have similar eligibility requirements. Next, we evaluated the  services provided by programs, based on the findings of our 2003 review,  to select those programs from each primary population group category  that provide similar services. Third, based on the assumption that  duplication is more likely to occur among programs administered across  different agencies, we selected the primary population group categories  that contained programs administered by more than one federal agency.  The programs within these categories were selected for the next step of  our selection process. Using the CFDA program descriptions, we reviewed  the objectives of the remaining programs to select those programs with  similar objectives. Finally, we reviewed program financial data from our  2001 review to select three programs that were among the largest  programs in terms of the amount spent on employment and training  services—the Department of Labor’s WIA Adult Program, Labor’s  Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities Program, and the  Department of Health and Human Service’s Temporary Assistance for  Needy Families Program. Each of these programs spent between $750  million and about $1 billion on employment and training services in fiscal  year 1999, the time period assessed in our 2001 review.
To determine the extent of duplication across these programs, we  interviewed federal agency officials, state officials, officials from other  organizations, and obtained additional information. When meeting with  agency officials, we discussed each program’s structure including service  locations, staffing levels and staff responsibilities, and coordination efforts  with agencies that provide similar programs. In addition, we obtained  documentation regarding the administrative costs associated with  providing employment and training services. We reviewed relevant reports  and interviewed officials from three organizations familiar with these  programs—the Center for Law and Social Policy, the American Public  Human Services Association, and the National Governors Association—to  obtain their perspectives on the extent of duplication across the three  selected programs. We also reviewed documentation and conducted  interviews with officials in Florida, Texas, and Utah, three of the states  that are considered to be the furthest along in their efforts to consolidate  the administrative structures for these and other programs.
section_title: Performance Evaluations
paragraphs: To analyze the studies identified by survey respondents as impact and  performance evaluations of the 47 surveyed employment and training  programs they managed, we reviewed each study cited to determine  whether criteria for each evaluation type, as specified in the questionnaire,  were met.
subsections: section_title: Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
paragraphs: Our questionnaire asked respondents whether their program had been  evaluated by OMB’s PART since fiscal year 2004. For respondents who  indicated that their programs had undergone a PART review, we searched  OMB’s PART Web site (www.expectmore.gov) in order to verify that a  review had been completed. Of the 47 surveyed programs, 23 respondents  answered that they had undergone a PART review since 2004. The process  of verifying these answers on OMB’s PART Web site clarified that 17 of the  23 programs’ responses were correct. The other 6 programs’ responses  were inaccurate by 2 years or less: all 23 of the programs answering  positively to this question have undergone a PART review since 2002, but  only 17 have taken place during or since 2004. In the course of our work,  we found that one additional program was assessed using OMB’s PART in  2004, but this review was not identified by the program official who  completed our survey.
section_title: Impact Studies
paragraphs: The questionnaire asked respondents whether an impact study had been  completed since 2004 to evaluate program performance with regard to  employment and training activities and, if so, to provide a citation for at  least one of these studies. An impact study assesses the net effect of a  program by comparing program outcomes with an estimate of what would  have happened in the absence of the program. This type of study is  conducted when external factors are known to influence the program  outcomes, in order to isolate the program’s contribution to the  achievement of its objectives.
Of the survey’s 47 respondents, 8 provided at least one citation of what  they believed to be an impact study. Of the 8 cited studies, we determined  that 5 can accurately be described as completed impact studies. To make  this assessment, we reviewed the methodology section of each study, to  the extent it had one. Two of the studies cited were deemed to be too  methodologically limited to be classified as an impact study based on the  description contained in the studies, and one of the studies was not yet  completed at the time of our review.
section_title: Other Studies
paragraphs: Our questionnaire also asked respondents whether any studies other than  impact studies had been completed since 2004 to evaluate the program’s  performance with regard to employment and training activities and, if so,  to provide a citation for at least one of them. Of the survey’s 47  respondents, 13 provided at least one citation of a study that has evaluated  program performance with regard to employment and training activities.  In addition, one study cited by a program official as an impact study that  was determined not to be an impact study was considered in this step. We  determined that 13 of these 14 studies cited were based on research  designs that allowed for the measurement of program performance with  regard to employment and training activities and had been completed  since 2004. One study cited in the questionnaire by a program official was  not made available for review upon follow-up evaluations because it was  said to not yet have been cleared for distribution. To make this  assessment, we focused on the methodology section of the reports to the  extent they had one.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 through  January 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Estimated Proportion of Fiscal Year 2009 Appropriation Used on Employment and Training Activities
paragraphs: Also known as the Native Employment Works program.
Agency officials were unable to estimate the amount spent on employment and training activities.
section_title: Appendix III: Estimated Proportion of Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriation Used on Employment and Training Activities
paragraphs: Also known as the Native Employment Works program.
Officials were unable to estimate the amount that will be used on employment and training activities.
section_title: Appendix IV: Estimated Number of Program Participants Who Received Employment or Training Services
subsections: section_title: Conservation Activities by Youth Service Organizations
paragraphs: Indian Vocational Training—United Tribes Technical College  Brownfield Job Training Cooperative Agreements  Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program  Career and Technical Education—Basic Grants to States  Career and Technical Education—Indian Set-aside  Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education  Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Targeted Assistance Discretionary Program  Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Targeted Assistance Grants  Second Chance Act Prisoner Reentry Initiative  Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions   program grantees.
Officials were unable to provide an estimate of the number of individuals who received employment  and training services.
section_title: Appendix V: Outcome Measures Tracked in Fiscal Year 2009, By Program
subsections: section_title: Entered
paragraphs: Also known as the Native Employment Works program.
section_title: Appendix VI: Programs That Identified Performance Reviews Completed Since 2004, By Type of Study
paragraphs: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (HHS)
National Guard Youth Challenge Program (DOD)
Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program (DOL)
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project (DOL)
Local Veterans’ Employment Representative Program (DOL)
Registered Apprenticeship and Other Training (DOL)
American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services (ED)
Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program (ED)
State Supported Employment Services Program (ED)
Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Voluntary Agency Matching Grant Program (HHS)
Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities (DOL)
Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans (VA)
Community-Based Job Training Grants (DOL) programs provided citations. We evaluated the methodology of each study and  determined that 5 of them met the definition of an impact study provided in our questionnaire—a  study that assessed the net effect of a program by comparing program outcomes with an estimate of  what would have happened in the absence of the program—and had been completed since 2004.  The other  studies either did not meet our definition or were not completed.   programs reported that their programs have been reviewed by OMB’s PART since  2004. We verified this against OMB’s PART Web site (www.expectmore.gov) and determined that 17  of the 2 programs have been reviewed by PART since 2004; the other 6 were reviewed by PART in  2002 or 200.   programs provided citations for at least one other study that evaluated program  performance with respect to employment and training activities since 2004. We reviewed these 1  studies, as well as another study that was identified as an impact study but did not meet our  definition. We determined that 12 of the 14 studies evaluated program performance with respect to  employment and training activities and had been completed since 2004. One study was cited but not  made available for our review because it had not been cleared by the agency for distribution at the  time of our survey.
section_title: Appendix VII: Population Groups Served by Employment and Training Programs, Fiscal Year 2009
paragraphs: Creer nd Technicl Edtion – Basic Grnt to Ste (ED)
Employment Service/Wgner-Peyer Fnded Activitie (DOL)
H-1B Jo Trining Grnt (DOL) Regitered Apprenticehip nd Other Trining (DOL)
Americn Indin Voctionl Rehabilittion Service (ED)
Creer nd Technicl Edtion – IndiSet-aside (ED)
Indin Voctionl Trining – United Tri Technicl College (DOI)
Ntive Hiin Creer nd Technicl Edtion (ED) Tribal Work Grnt (HHS)
Rehabilittion Service – Voctionl Rehabilittion    Grnt to Ste (ED) Ste-Supported Employment Service Progrm (ED)
Grnt to Ste for Workplce nd Commnity Trition Trining for    Incrcerted Individua (ED)
Refgee nd Entrnt Assnce – SociService Progrm (HHS)
Refgee nd Entrnt Assnce – Trgeted Assnce  Dicretionry Progrm (HHS)
Refgee nd Entrnt Assnce – Trgeted Assnce Grnt (HHS)
Refgee nd Entrnt Assnce – Volntry Agency Mtching  Grnt Progrm (HHS)
Locl Veters’ Employment Repreenttive Progrm (DOL)
Conervtion Activitie y Yoth Service Orgniztion (DOI)
Other Brownfield Jo Trining Coopertive Agreement (EPA)nity Service Employment Progrm (DOL)WANTO (DOL)
The populations served are solely people with disabilities, and in most cases, those with significant  disabilities.
The primary population group served by the program is residents of Brownfield-impacted  communities.
section_title: Appendix VIII: Summary of Services Provided by Employment and Training Programs
paragraphs: Nearly all of the 47 programs offered participants a wide range of  employment and training services in fiscal year 2009. For example, 43  programs offered participants at least 6 services, and 28 programs offered  participants 10 or more services. Across all programs, the most commonly  provided services were employment counseling and assessment, job  readiness skills training, occupational or vocational training, and job  search or job placement activities (see fig. 8). Agency officials also  indicated whether each service provided by their programs was a primary  or secondary service. The two most commonly provided primary services  were occupational or vocational training and job search or job placement  activities.
section_title: Appendix IX: Services Provided by Employment and Training Programs, Fiscal Year 2009
subsections: section_title: E m m ounli nd ssss m
section_title: E m m ounli nd ssss m
section_title: E m m ounli nd ssss m
paragraphs: Program provides career guidance and academic counseling that includes information regarding  career awareness and planning, career options, financial aid, and postsecondary options, including  baccalaureate degree programs.
section_title: Appendix X: Programs Reporting Requiring Beneficiaries to be Economically Disadvantaged, Fiscal Year 2009
section_title: Appendix XI: Reported Objectives and Eligibility for Employment and Training Programs, by Target Group
subsections: section_title: Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) (Labor)
paragraphs: To provide adjustment assistance  to qualified workers adversely  affected by foreign trade which will  assist them to obtain suitable  employment.
Under the Recovery Act, group  eligibility was significantly  expanded, and benefits were  enhanced to focus more on  retraining opportunities.
A TAA beneficiary must: (1) be found  by the Labor Department to have been  adversely affected by increased  imports or a shift in production to all  countries, (2) be certified by the  Secretary of Labor as eligible to apply  for adjustment assistance, and (3)  meet the following individual  requirements: (a) his or her  unemployment or underemployment  must have begun on or after the  impact date specified in the  Secretary’s certification as the  beginning of the import-impacted  unemployment or underemployment;  (b) his or her unemployment must  begin before the expiration of the 2- year period beginning on the date on  which the Secretary issued the  certification for his or her group or  before the termination date, if any,  specified in the certification. In  addition, to be eligible for weekly trade  readjustment allowance (TRA)  payments he or she must: (1) have  been employed with wages at a  minimum of $30 per week by the  import-affected firm for at least 26 of  the previous 52 weeks including the  week of total layoff (up to 7 weeks of  employer-authorized leave may be  counted as qualifying weeks of  employment or up to 26 weeks of  disability compensation); and (2) be  enrolled in or have completed a TAA- approved job training program, unless  the determination is made that training  is either not feasible or not  appropriate, in which case a waiver of  the training requirement may be  issued. To receive TRA, the claimant  must be enrolled in an approved  training program within 26 weeks of  the Secretary’s issuance of the  certification or within 26 weeks of the  worker’s most recent qualifying  separation, whichever is later.
Under the Recovery Act, group  eligibility requirements now allow for  certification of service workers as well  as those who produce an article. In  addition, government employees can  now be certified when tasks are  shifted abroad. Finally, workers who  produce component parts of a product  are also eligible.
The purpose of the WIA  Dislocated Workers program is to  reemploy dislocated workers,  improve the quality of the  workforce, and enhance the  productivity and competitiveness  of the nation’s economy by  providing workforce investment  activities that increase the  employment, retention, and  earnings of participants, and  increase occupational skill  attainment by the participants.  This program is designed to  increase employment, as  measured by entry into  unsubsidized employment,  retention in unsubsidized  employment after entry into  employment, and extent of  recovery of prior earnings.
Individuals eligible for assistance  through the applicants receiving the  funds include workers who have lost  their jobs, including those dislocated  as a result of plant closings or mass  layoffs, and are unlikely to return to  their previous industry or occupation;  formerly self-employed individuals;  and displaced homemakers who have  been dependent on income of another  family member, but are no longer  supported by that income. Priority of  Service is given to veterans and other  covered persons. The NEGs have  identical eligibility to the above and  also includes certain military personnel  and defense employees. Services  through NEGs are targeted on  individuals affected by mass layoffs,  natural disasters, federal government  actions, and other circumstances  specified by the Secretary.
WIA National Emergency Grants (Labor)
The purpose of the National  Emergency Grants program is to  temporarily expand service  capacity at the state and local  levels by providing time-limited  funding assistance in response to  significant dislocation events.  Significant events are those that  create a sudden need for  assistance that cannot reasonably  be expected to be accommodated  within the ongoing operations of  the formula-funded Dislocated  Worker program, including the  discretionary resources reserved  at the state level.
Individuals who are eligible for  assistance vary by type of National  Emergency Grant project, however  they must meet the criteria provided in  the Workforce Investment Act:  National Emergency Grants -  Application Procedures, 69 Federal  Register 23052 at 23057 (Apr. 27,  2004).
section_title: Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program (Education)
paragraphs: To provide discretionary grant  funds to state vocational  rehabilitation agencies and public  nonprofit organizations for special  projects and demonstrations which  hold promise of expanding and  otherwise improving services to  individuals with disabilities over  and above those provided by the  Basic Support Program  administered by states.
Individuals with disabilities and  individuals with significant disabilities  as defined in Sections 7(9)(A)(B) and  7(20)(A), respectively, of the  Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as  amended.
National Farmworker Jobs Program (Labor)
To provide job training and other  employability development  services and related assistance for  those individuals, including their  dependents, who are primarily  employed in agricultural labor that  is characterized by chronic  unemployment and  underemployment.
The ultimate beneficiaries are low  income individuals and their  dependents who have, during any  consecutive 12-month period in the 24  months preceding their application for  enrollment, been primarily employed in  agricultural labor that is characterized  by chronic unemployment or  underemployment due to the seasonal  or migratory nature of the work.  Individuals must also be legally  available for work and males must not  have violated the Selective Service  Act registration requirement.
Multiple groups (no specific target group)
Career and Technical Education—Basic Grants to States  (Education)
To develop more fully the  academic, career, and technical  skills of secondary and  postsecondary students who elect  to enroll in career and technical  education programs.
A wide range of students pursuing  academic and career and technical  education will benefit.
Community-Based Job Training Grants (Labor)
Workers must have the skills  needed to secure good jobs and  pursue careers in high-growth,  high-demand industries.  Community colleges are important  training providers for workers  needing to develop, retool, refine,  and broaden their skills in high- growth, high-demand occupations  because of their close connection  to local labor markets. Community- Based Job Training Grants  strengthen the role of community  colleges in promoting the U.S.  workforce’s full potential.
Community-Based Job Training  Grants are awarded through a  competitive process to support  workforce training for workers to  prepare them for careers in high- growth industries through the  national system of community and  technical colleges. current job have changed; untapped  labor pools such as immigrant  workers, individuals with disabilities,  veterans, older workers, youth, etc; or  entry-level workers who need basic  skills and/or specific occupational skill  training.
Community Services Block Grant (Health and Human  Services )
States make grants to qualified locally  based nonprofit community antipoverty  agencies and other eligible entities  which provide services to low-income  individuals and families. The official  poverty line, as established by the  Secretary of Health and Human  Services, is used as a criterion of  eligibility in the Community Services  Block Grant program. When a state  determines that it serves the  objectives of the block grant, it may  revise the income limit, not to exceed  125 percent of the official poverty line.
Under the Recovery Act, states were  able to revise the income limit to not  exceed 200 % of the official poverty  line for fiscal years 2009 and 2010.
Appendix XI: Reported Objectives and  Eligibility for Employment and Training  Programs, by Target Group (h) make more effective use of  other related programs; (3) to  provide on an emergency basis for  the services to low-income  individuals.
Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities  (Labor)
To assist persons to secure  employment and workforce  information by providing a variety  of job search assistance and  information services without  charge to job seekers and to  employers seeking qualified  individuals to fill job openings.
All employers seeking workers,  persons seeking employment, and  associated groups. Priority of service  is given to veterans and other covered  persons. Veterans receive priority  referral to jobs, as well as specialized  employment services and assistance.  The Wagner-Peyser program also  administers the work test for state  unemployment compensation systems  and provides job search and  placement services for unemployment  insurance claimants.
The H-1B Job Training Grants  Program funds projects that  provide training and related  activities to workers to assist them  in gaining the skills and  competencies needed to obtain or  upgrade employment in high- growth industries or economic  sectors.
Generally, the scope of potential  trainees under these programs can be  very broad. Please review the  Solicitation for Grant Application for  specific requirements. Training may be  targeted to a wide variety of  populations, including unemployed  individuals and incumbent workers.
Registered Apprenticeship and Other Training (Labor)
To stimulate and assist industry in  the development, expansion, and  improvement of registered  apprenticeship and other training  programs designed to provide the  skilled workers required by U.S.  employers, ensure equal  employment opportunities in  registered apprenticeship, and  ensure the quality of all new and  existing registered apprenticeship  programs.
Individuals applying for acceptance  into an apprenticeship training  program must be at least 16 years old  and must satisfy the apprenticeship  program sponsor that they have  sufficient ability, aptitude, and  education to master the rudiments of  the trade/occupation and to  satisfactorily complete the related  theoretical instruction required in the  program.
section_title: SNAP Employment and Training Program (Agriculture)
paragraphs: To assist members of households  participating in SNAP in gaining  skills, training, work, or experience  that will increase their ability to  obtain regular employment.
Households may have no more than  $2,000 in countable resources, such  as a bank account ($3,000 if at least  one person in the household is age 60  or older, or is disabled). Certain  resources are not counted, such as a  home and lot. Special rules are used  to determine the resource value of  vehicles owned by household  members. The gross monthly income  of most households must be 130 % or  less of the federal poverty guidelines  ($2,389 per month for a family of four  in most places, effective Oct. 1, 2009  through Sept. 30, 2010). Gross  income includes all cash payments to  the household, with a few exceptions  specified in the law or the program  regulations. Net monthly income must  be 100 % or less of federal poverty  guidelines ($1,838 per month for a  household of four in most places,  effective Oct. 1, 2009 through Sept.  30, 2010). Net income is figured by  adding all of a household’s gross  income, and then taking a number of  approved deductions for child care,  some shelter costs, and other  expenses. Households with an elderly  or disabled member are subject only  to the net income test. Most able- bodied adult applicants must meet  certain work requirements. All  household members must provide a  Social Security number or apply for  one. SNAP participants who are not  exempt from work requirements must  participate in an Employment and  Training (E&T) Program if referred.  SNAP participants may also volunteer  for the E&T Program, but the state  agency decides who it will serve.
This program provides assistance  to state eligible agencies to award  grants to consortia of local  agencies and postsecondary  education institutions for the  development and operation of  programs consisting of at least 2  years of secondary education and  at least 2 years of postsecondary  education or an apprenticeship  program that follows secondary  education. These programs  provide Tech-Prep education to  students, leading to a technical  skills proficiency, an industry- recognized credential, a certificate,  or a degree in a specific career  field.
Students desiring to participate in a  combined secondary/postsecondary  program leading to a technical skill  proficiency, postsecondary degree, or  2-year certificate with technical  preparation in at least one field of  engineering, applied science,  mechanical, industrial, or practical art  or trade, or agriculture, health, or  business will benefit.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (HHS)
To provide grants to states,  territories, the District of Columbia,  and federally recognized Indian  Tribes operating their own Tribal  TANF programs to assist needy  families with children so that  children can be cared for in their  own homes; to reduce  dependency by promoting job  preparation, work, and marriage;  to reduce and prevent out-of- wedlock pregnancies; and to  encourage the formation and  maintenance of two-parent  families.
Needy families with children, as  determined eligible by the state,  territory, or tribe in accordance with  the state or tribal plan submitted to  HHS.
The purpose of this program is to  improve the quality of the  workforce, reduce welfare  dependency, and enhance the  productivity and competitiveness  of the nation’s economy by  providing workforce investment  activities that increase the  employment, retention, and  earnings of participants, and  increase occupational skill  attainment by the participants.  This program is designed to  increase employment, as  measured by entry into  unsubsidized employment,  retention in unsubsidized  employment after entry into  employment, and earnings.
All adults 18 years and older are  eligible for core services. Priority for  intensive and training services must  be given to recipients of public  assistance and other low-income  individuals where funds are limited.  States and local areas are responsible  for establishing procedures for  applying the priority requirements.  Priority of service is given to veterans  and other covered persons.
section_title: Native Americans (includes Native Hawaiians)
paragraphs: American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services  (Education)
To provide vocational rehabilitation  services to American Indians with  disabilities who reside on federal  or state reservations in order to  prepare them for suitable  employment.
American Indians with disabilities  residing on or near a federal or state  reservation (including Native  Alaskans) who meet the definition of  an individual with a disability in  Section 7 (8)(A) of the Rehabilitation  Act.
Career and Technical Education—Indian Set-aside  (Education)
To make grants to or enter into  contracts with Indian tribes, tribal  organizations, and Alaska Native  entities to plan, conduct, and  administer programs or portions of  programs authorized by and  consistent with the Carl D. Perkins  Career and Technical Education  Act of 2006.
Members of federally-recognized  Indian tribes, tribal organizations,  Alaska Native entities, and certain  schools funded by the Department of  the Interior’s Bureau of Indian  Education.
To provide vocational training and  employment opportunities to  eligible American Indians and  reduce federal dependence.
Members of federally recognized  Indian Tribes who are unemployed,  underemployed, or in need of training  to obtain reasonable and satisfactory  employment. Complete information on  beneficiary eligibility is found in 25  CFR, Parts 26 and 27.
Indian Vocational Training—United Tribes Technical  College (Interior)
To provide vocational training to  individual American Indians  through the United Tribes  Technical College, located in  Bismarck, North Dakota.
Individual American Indians who are  members of a federally recognized  Indian Tribe and reside on or near an  Indian reservation under the  jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian  Affairs. Complete information on  beneficiary eligibility is found in 25  CFR, Parts 26 and 27.
section_title: Native American Employment and Training (Labor)
paragraphs: To support employment and  training activities for Indian, Alaska  Native, and Native Hawaiian  individuals in order: to develop  more fully the academic,  occupational, and literacy skills of  such individuals; to make such  individuals more competitive in the  workforce; and to promote the  economic and social development  of Indian, Alaska Native, and  Native Hawaiian communities in  accordance with the goals and  values of such communities. All  programs assisted under this  section shall be administered in a  manner consistent with the  principles of the Indian Self- Determination and Education  Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et  seq.) and the government-to- government relationship between  the federal government and Indian  tribal governments. Supplemental  youth funding is also awarded to  help low-income Native American  youth and Native Hawaiian youth,  between the ages of 14 and 21,  acquire the educational skills,  training, and the support needed  to achieve academic and  employment success and  successfully transition to careers  and productive adulthood.
American Indians (members of  federally recognized and state Indian  tribes, bands, and groups); other  individuals of Native American  descent, such as, but not limited to,  the Klamaths in Oregon, Micmac and  Maliseet in Maine, the Lumbees in  North Carolina and South Carolina;  Indians variously described as  terminated or landless, Eskimos and  Aleuts in Alaska, and Hawaiian  Natives. (“Hawaiian Native” means an  individual any of whose ancestors  were natives prior to 1778 of the area  which now comprises the State of  Hawaii.) Applicants must also be  economically disadvantaged,  unemployed, or underemployed. A  Native American grantee may in some  cases enroll participants who are not  economically disadvantaged,  unemployed, or underemployed in  upgrading and retraining programs.  See 20 CFR 668.300(b)(4) and (5).  Native American youth between the  ages of 14 and 21 who live on or near  a reservation or in the States of  Oklahoma, Alaska, and Hawaii and  are low-income, are eligible to receive  supplemental youth services.
Under the Recovery Act, the  program’s supplemental youth  eligibility age requirements were  extended to 24.
Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education  (Education)
To make grants to organizations  primarily serving and representing  Native Hawaiians for programs or  portions of programs authorized  by, and consistent with, the Carl D.  Perkins Career and Technical  Education Act.
Native Hawaiians served by eligible  entities will benefit. Eligible entities are  community-based organizations  primarily serving and representing  Native Hawaiians. For purposes of this  program, a community-based  organization means a public or private  nonprofit organization that provides  career and technical education, or  related services to individuals in the  Native Hawaiian community. Any  eligible community-based organization  may apply individually or with one or  more eligible community-based  organizations or as a member of a  consortium.
To allow eligible Indian Tribes and  Alaska Native organizations to  operate a program to make work  activities available.
Service areas and populations as  designated by the eligible Indian Tribe  or Alaska Native organization.
Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical  Institutions (Education)
To make grants to tribally  controlled postsecondary  vocational and technical  institutions to provide career and  technical education services and  basic support for the education  and training of Indian students.
American Indians served by eligible  entities will benefit. Eligible entities are  Tribally Controlled Postsecondary  Career and Technical Institutions that  receive no funds from either the  Tribally Controlled College or  University Assistance Act of 1978 (25  U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) or the Navajo  Community College Act (25 U.S.C.  640a et seq.).
To create and expand job and  career opportunities for individuals  with disabilities in the competitive  labor market by partnering with  private industry to provide job  training and placement and career  advancement services.
An individual is eligible for services  under this program if the individual to  be served is an individual with a  disability or an individual with a  significant disability, as defined in  Sections 7 (20)(A) and 7 (21)(A),  respectively, of the Rehabilitation Act  of 1973, as amended. In making this  determination, the state vocational  rehabilitation unit shall rely on the  determination made by the recipient of  the grant under which the services are  provided, to the extent that the  determination is appropriate, available,  and consistent with the requirements  of the Act.
Rehabilitation Services—Vocational Rehabilitation Grants  to States (Education)
To assist states in operating  comprehensive, coordinated,  effective, efficient, and  accountable programs of  vocational rehabilitation; to  assess, plan, develop, and provide  vocational rehabilitation services  for individuals with disabilities,  consistent with their strengths,  resources, priorities, concerns,  abilities, and capabilities so they  may prepare for and engage in  competitive employment.
Eligibility for vocational rehabilitation  services is based on the presence of a  physical and/or mental impairment,  which for such an individual  constitutes or results in a substantial  impediment to employment, and the  need for vocational rehabilitation  services that may be expected to  benefit the individual in terms of an  employment outcome.
section_title: State Supported Employment Services Program (Education)
paragraphs: To provide grants for time-limited  services leading to supported  employment for individuals with  the most severe disabilities to  enable such individuals to achieve  the employment outcome of  supported employment.
Individuals with the most severe  disabilities whose ability or potential to  engage in a training program leading  to supported employment has been  determined by evaluating rehabilitation  potential. In addition, individuals must  need extended services in order to  perform competitive work and have  the ability to work in a supported  employment setting.
Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition  Training for Incarcerated Individuals (Education)
To assist and encourage  incarcerated individuals who have  obtained a secondary school  diploma or its recognized  equivalent to acquire educational  and job skills through: coursework  to prepare such individuals to  pursue a postsecondary education  certificate, an associate’s degree,  or bachelor’s degree while in  prison or employment counseling  and other related services which  start during incarceration and end  not later than 2 years after release  from incarceration.
An incarcerated individual who has  obtained a secondary school diploma  or its recognized equivalent shall be  eligible for participation if such  individual (1) is eligible to be released  within 7 years (including an  incarcerated individual who is eligible  for parole within such time); (2) is 35  years of age or younger; and (3) has  not been convicted of—(A) a ‘criminal  offense’, or sexually violent offense’,  as such terms are defined in the Jacob  Wetterling Crimes Against Children  and Sexually Violent Offender  Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14071 et  seq.); or (B) murder, as described in  section 1111 of title 18, United States  Code.
This program includes both  Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI)  grants to serve adult returning  offenders and Youthful Offender  grants aimed at youth involved or  at risk of involvement in crime and  violence. The objectives of the PRI  grants include increasing the  employment rate, employment  retention rate, and earnings of  released prisoners, and  decreasing their recidivism. The  objectives of the Youthful Offender  grants include preventing in-school  youth from dropping out of school,  increasing the employment rate of  out-of-school youth, increasing the  reading and math skills of youth,  reducing the involvement of youth  in crime and violence, and  reducing the recidivism rate of  youth.
PRI grants serve individuals, 18 years  old and older, who have been  convicted as an adult and have been  imprisoned for violating a state or  federal law, and who have never been  committed a sex-related offense.  Depending on the solicitation,  enrollment may be limited based on  whether the presenting offense was  violent or whether the individual has  previously committed a violent crime.  Individuals eligible for Youthful  Offender grants vary depending on the  solicitation.
section_title: Second Chance Act Prisoner Reentry Initiative (Justice)
paragraphs: To facilitate inmates’ successful  reintegration into society. This  initiative is a comprehensive effort  that addresses both juvenile and  adult populations of serious, high- risk offenders. Phase 1 programs  are designed to prepare offenders  to reenter society and the services  provided include job training.  Phase 2 programs work with  offenders prior to and immediately  following their release from  correctional institutions and the  services provided include job-skills  development. Phase 3 programs  connect individuals who have left  the supervision of the justice  system with a network of social  service agencies and community- based organizations to provide  ongoing services and mentoring  relationships.
The target population for the initiative  must be a specific subset of the  population of individuals aged 18 and  older convicted as an adult and  imprisoned in a state, local, or tribal  prison or jail.
Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Social Services  Program (HHS)
The Refugee Social Services  Program is part of the Division of  Refugee Assistance and allocates  formula funds to states to serve  refugees who have been in the  U.S. less than 60 months (5  years). This program supports  employability services and other  services that address participants’  barriers to employment such as  social adjustment services,  interpretation and translation  services, day care for children,  citizenship and naturalization  services, etc. Employability  services are designed to enable  refugees to obtain jobs within 1  year of becoming enrolled in  services.
Refugees who have been in the U.S.  less than 60 months (5 years). Service  priorities are (a) all newly arriving  refugees during their first year in the  U.S. who apply for services; (b)  refugees who are receiving cash  assistance; (c) unemployed refugees  who are not receiving cash assistance;  and (d) employed refugees in need of  services to retain employment or to  attain economic independence.
section_title: Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Targeted Assistance Discretionary Program (HHS)
paragraphs: The Targeted Assistance  Discretionary Program is part of  the Division of Refugee Assistance  and provides grants to states and  state-alternative programs to  address the employment needs of  refugees that cannot be met with  the Formula Social Services or  Formula Targeted Assistance  Grant programs. Activities under  this program are for the purpose of  supplementing and/or  complementing existing  employment services to help  refugees achieve economic self- sufficiency.
Services funded through the targeted  assistance program are required to  focus primarily on those refugees who,  either because of their protracted use  of public assistance or difficulty in  securing employment, continue to  need services beyond the initial years  of resettlement. This funding  requirement also promotes the  provision of services to refugees who  are “hard to reach” and, thus, finding  greater difficulty integrating. Refugees  residing in the U.S. longer than 5  years, refugee women who are not  literate in their native language, as  well as the elderly are some of the  special populations served by this  discretionary grant program.
Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Targeted Assistance  Grants (HHS)
To provide funding for  employment-related and other  social services for refugees,  asylees, certain Amerasians,  victims of a severe form of  trafficking, entrants, and Iraqi and  Afghan special immigrants in  areas of high refugee  concentration and high welfare  utilization.
Persons admitted to the U.S. within  the last 5 years as refugees under  Section 207 of the Immigration and  Nationality Act; granted asylum under  Section 208 of the Act; Cuban and  Haitian entrants, as defined in Section  501 of the Refugee Education  Assistance Act; and certain  Amerasians from Vietnam and their  accompanying family members, as  defined by Section 584(c) of the  Foreign Relations, Export Financing,  and Related Programs Appropriation  Act of 1988. Victims of a severe form  of trafficking who have received a  certified or letter of eligibility from  ORR.
Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Voluntary Agency  Matching Grant Program (HHS)
To assist refugees in becoming  self-supporting and independent  members of American society, by  providing grant funds to private  nonprofit organizations to support  case management, transitional  assistance, and social services for  new arrivals.
Refugees must be enrolled within 31  days of arrival. Entrants/asylees must  be enrolled within 31 days of granting  of parole or asylum.
section_title: Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program (Labor)
paragraphs: To provide intensive services to  meet the employment needs of  disabled and other eligible  veterans with maximum emphasis  in meeting the employment needs  of those who are economically or  educationally disadvantaged,  including homeless veterans and  veterans with barriers to  employment.
Eligible veterans and eligible persons  with emphasis on Special Disabled  veterans, disabled veterans,  economically or educationally  disadvantaged veterans, and veterans  with other barriers to employment.
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project (Labor)
To provide services to assist in  reintegrating homeless veterans  into meaningful employment within  the labor force and to stimulate the  development of effective service  delivery systems that will address  the complex problems facing  homeless veterans.
Individuals who are homeless  veterans. The term “homeless” or  “homeless individual” includes: (1) An  individual who lacks a fixed, regular,  and adequate nighttime residence;  and (2) an individual who has a  primary nighttime residence that is: (a)  a supervised publicly or privately  operated shelter designed to provide  temporary living accommodations  including welfare hotels, congregate  shelters, and transitional housing for  the mentally ill; (b) an institution that  provides a temporary institutionalized;  or (c) a public or private place not  designed for, or ordinarily used as, a  regular sleeping accommodations for  human beings (Reference: 42 U.S.C.  1302). A “veteran” is an individual who  served in the active military, naval, or  air service, and who was discharged  or released there from under  conditions other than dishonorable.  (Reference: 33 U.S.C. 101 (2)).
Local Veterans’ Employment Representative Program  (Labor)
Conduct outreach and provide  seminars to employers which  advocates hiring of veterans;  facilitate Transition Assistance  Program (TAP) employment  workshops to transitioning service  members; establish and conduct  job search workshops; facilitate  employment, training, and  placement services furnished to  veterans in a state under the  applicable state employment  service or one-stop career center  delivery systems whose sole  purpose is to assist veterans in  gaining and retaining employment.
Eligible veterans and eligible persons.
To provide employment  instruction, information, and  assistance to separating and  retiring military personnel and their  spouses through domestic and  overseas installations and/or  facilities by offering job search and  other related services.
Service members within 2 years of  retirement or 1 year of separation and  their spouses.
Veterans’ Workforce Investment Program (Labor)
To provide services to assist in  reintegrating eligible veterans into  meaningful employment within the  labor force and to stimulate the  development of effective service  delivery systems that will address  the complex problems facing  eligible veterans.
Service-connected disabled veterans,  veterans who have significant barriers  to employment, veterans who served  on active duty in the armed forces  during a war or in a campaign or  expedition for which a campaign  badge has been authorized, and  veterans who are recently separated  from military service (48 months).
Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans (VA)
To provide all services and  assistance necessary to enable  service-disabled veterans and  service persons hospitalized or  receiving outpatient medical care  services or treatment for a service- connected disability pending  discharge to gain and maintain  suitable employment. When  employment is not reasonably  feasible, the program can provide  the needed services and  assistance to help the individual  achieve maximum independence  in daily living.
Veterans of World War II and later  service with a service-connected  disability or disabilities rated at least  20 % compensable and certain  service-disabled servicepersons  pending discharge or release from  service if VA determines the  servicepersons will likely receive at  least a 20 % rating and they need  vocational rehabilitation because of an  employment handicap. Veterans with  compensable ratings of 10 % may also  be eligible if they are found to have a  serious employment handicap. To  receive an evaluation for vocational  rehabilitation services, a veteran must  have received, or eventually receive,  an honorable or other than  dishonorable discharge, have a VA  service-connected disability rating of  10 % or more, and apply for vocational  rehabilitation services.
section_title: Conservation Activities by Youth Service Organizations (Interior)
paragraphs: To utilize qualified youth or  conservation corps to carry out  appropriate conservation projects  which the Secretary is authorized  to carry out under other authority  of law on public lands. Work  cooperatively with the National  Park Service (NPS) on cultural-  and natural resource-related  conservation projects such as trail  development and maintenance;  historic, cultural, forest and timber  management; minor construction  work; archaeological conservation;  and native plant habitat restoration  and rehabilitation. Promote and  stimulate public purposes such as  education, job training,  development of responsible  citizenship, productive community  involvement, and further the  understanding and appreciation of  natural and cultural resources  through the involvement of youth  and young adults in care and  enhancement of public resources.  Continue the longstanding efforts  of the NPS to provide  opportunities for public service,  youth employment, minority youth  development and training, and  participation of young adults in  accomplishing conservation- related work.
Private nonprofit institutions and  organizations, state and local  government agencies, and quasi- public nonprofit institutions and  organizations that support youth  career training and development in the  areas of resource management,  conservation, and cultural resources;  individuals/families; graduate students;  youth or corps located in a specific  area that have a substantial portion of  members who are economically  physically, or educationally  disadvantaged (Public Land Corps Act  of 1993); general public, specifically,  young people, minority groups, social  and economically disadvantaged  individuals will benefit from the  education and skill development in the  area of conservation as well as  instilling conservation ethics.
Job Corps is the nation’s largest  federally funded training program  that provides at-risk youth, ages  16-24, with academic instruction,  toward the achievement of a High  School Diploma or GED, and  career training in high-growth,  high-demand industries. Upon exit  from the program, participants  receive transition assistance to  employment, higher education, or  the military. The program is  primarily residential, serving more  than 60,000 students at 123  centers nationwide.
To be eligible to become an enrollee,  an individual shall be: (1) not less than  age 16 and not more than age 21 on  the date of enrollment, except that (A)  not more than 20 % of the individuals  enrolled in the Job Corps may be not  less than age 22 and not more than  age 24 on the date of enrollment; and  (B) either such maximum age  limitation may be waived by the  Secretary, in accordance with  regulations of the Secretary, in the  case of an individual with a disability;  (2) a low-income individual; and (3) an  individual who is one or more of the  following: (A) basic skills deficient; (B)  a school dropout; (C) homeless, a  runaway, or a foster child; (D) a  parent; (E) an individual who requires  additional education, vocational  training, or intensive counseling and  related assistance, in order to  participate successfully in regular  schoolwork or to secure and hold  employment.
section_title: National Guard Youth Challenge Program (Defense)
paragraphs: The Secretary of Defense may use  the National Guard to conduct a  civilian youth opportunities  program, to be known as the  “National Guard Youth Challenge  Program, which shall consist of at  least a 22-week residential  program and a 12-month  postresidential mentoring period.  The program shall seek to improve  life skills and employment potential  of participants by providing  military-based training and  supervised work experience,  together with the core components  of assisting participants to receive  a high school diploma or its  equivalent, leadership  development, promoting fellowship  and community service,  developing life coping skills and  job skills, and improving physical  fitness and health and hygiene.
A school dropout from secondary  school shall be eligible to participate in  the program. The Secretary of  Defense shall prescribe the standards  and procedures for selecting  participants from among school  dropouts. Selection of participants for  the program established by the  Secretary of Defense shall be from  applicants who meet the following  eligibility standards: (a) 16-18 years of  age at time of entry into the program;  (b) a school dropout from secondary  school; (c) a citizen or legal resident of  the United States; (d) unemployed or  underemployed; (e) not currently on  parole or probation for other than  juvenile status offenses, not awaiting  sentencing, and not under indictment,  accused, or convicted of a felony; (f)  free from use of illegal drugs or  substances; (g) physically and  mentally capable to participate in the  program in which enrolled with  reasonable accommodation for  physical and other disabilities; and (h)  application procedures shall, to the  fullest extent possible, attempt to  reach and include economically and  educationally disadvantaged groups.
To help low-income youth,  between the ages of 14 and 21,  acquire the educational and  occupational skills, training, and  support needed to achieve  academic and employment  success and successfully  transition to careers and  productive adulthood.
Under the Recovery Act, any  youth activities under WIA were  allowable activities. While the Act  did not limit the use of Recovery  Act funds to summer employment,  the congressional intent was to  offer expanded summer  employment opportunities for  youth. ETA strongly encouraged  states and local areas to use as  much of the Recovery Act funds  as possible to operate expanded  summer youth employment  opportunities during the summer of  2009, and to provide as many  youth as possible with summer  employment opportunities and  work experiences throughout the  year, ensuring that these summer  employment opportunities and  work experiences were high  quality. ETA also expressed an  interest in and encouraged states  and local areas to develop work  experiences and other activities  that exposed youth to  opportunities in “green”  educational and career pathways.
An eligible youth is an individual who:  (1) is 14 to 21 years of age; and (2) is  an individual who received an income  or is a member of a family that  received a total family income that, in  relation to family size, does not  exceed the higher of (a) the poverty  line; or (b) 70 % of the lower living  standard income; and (3) meets one  or more of the following criteria: is an  individual who is deficient in basic  literacy skills; a school dropout;  homeless; a runaway; a foster child;  pregnant or a parent; an offender; or  requires additional assistance to  complete their education or secure  and hold employment. There is an  exception to permit youth who are not  low-income individuals to receive  youth services. Up to 5 % of youth  participants served by youth programs  in a local area may be individuals who  do not meet the income criterion for  eligible youth, provided that they are  within one or more of the following  categories: school dropout; basic skills  deficient; are one or more grade levels  below the grade level appropriate to  the individual’s age; pregnant or  parenting; possess one or more  disabilities, including learning  disabilities; homeless or runaway;  offender; or face serious barriers to  employment as identified by the local  board.
Under the Recovery Act, age eligibility  for youth services funded by the  Recovery Act increased from 21 to 24.
Grant funds will be used to provide  disadvantaged youth with: the  education and employment skills  necessary to achieve economic  self sufficiency in occupations in  high demand and postsecondary  education and training  opportunities; opportunities for  meaningful work and service to  their communities; and  opportunities to develop  employment and leadership skills  and a commitment to community  development among youth in low- income communities. As part of  their programming, YouthBuild  grantees will tap the energies and  talents of disadvantaged youth to  increase the supply of permanent  affordable housing for homeless  individuals and low-income  families and to assist youth  develop the leadership, learning,  and high-demand occupational  skills needed to succeed in today’s  global economy.
An eligible youth is an individual who  is: (1) between the ages of 16 and 24  on the date of enrollment; and (2) a  member of a disadvantaged youth  population such as a member of a low- income family, a youth in foster care  (including youth aging out of foster  care), a youth offender, a youth who is  an individual with a disability, a child of  an incarcerated parent, or a migrant  youth; and (3) an individual who has  dropped out of high school and re- enrolled in an alternative school, if that  re-enrollment is part of a sequential  service strategy. Up to (but not more  than) 25 % of the participants in the  program may be youth who do not  meet the education and  disadvantaged criteria above but who  are: (1) basic skills deficient, despite  attainment of a secondary school  diploma, General Education  Development (GED) credential, or  other state-recognized equivalent  (including recognized alternative  standards for individuals with  disabilities); or (2) have been referred  by a local secondary school for  participation in a YouthBuild program  leading to the attainment of a  secondary school diploma.
Appendix XI: Reported Objectives and  Eligibility for Employment and Training  Programs, by Target Group provides a year or more of educational  services prior to entry into the formal  YouthBuild program supported by  Labor’s Employment and Training  Administration. This definition is  intended to encompass a charter  school that is connected to a  YouthBuild program.
Brownfield Job Training Cooperative Agreements  (Environmental Protection)
The objective of the Brownfield  Job Training Program is to recruit,  train, and place unemployed and  underemployed, predominantly  low-income and minority, residents  of Brownfield-impacted  communities with the skills needed  to obtain full-time, sustainable  employment in Brownfield  assessment and cleanup activities  and the environmental field. The  Brownfield Job Training Program  promotes the facilitation of  assessment, remediation, or  preparation of Brownfield sites.
Job training grants will provide  environmental job training and help  individuals of Brownfield  neighborhoods take advantage of job  opportunities created as a result of the  assessment and clean up of  Brownfield properties. In addition, this  program benefits industry by  increasing the supply of skilled labor  for firms that engage in environmental  assessment and clean up.
Senior Community Service Employment Program  (SCSEP) (Labor)
To foster individual economic self- sufficiency; provide training in  meaningful part-time opportunities  in community service activities for  unemployed low-income persons  who are 55 years of age or older,  particularly persons who have  poor employment prospects; and  to increase the number of older  persons who may enjoy the  benefits of unsubsidized  employment in both the public and  private sectors.
Adults 55 years or older with a family  income at or below 125 % of the HHS  poverty level. Prospective participants  must provide documentation relative to  age and personal financial status,  which is required to determine whether  the individual is program eligible. With  certain exceptions, the Census  Bureau’s Current Population Survey  definition of income governs the  determination of SCSEP applicant  income eligibility. Section 518  (a)(3)(A)OAA-2006 specifies that any  income that is unemployment  compensation, a benefit received  under title XVI of the Social Security  Act; a payment made to or on behalf  of veterans or former members of the  armed forces under the laws  administered by the Secretary of  Veterans Affairs, or 25 % of a benefit  received under title II of the Social  Security Act is excluded from SCSEP  income eligibility determinations.
To promote the recruitment,  training, employment, and  retention of women in  apprenticeship and nontraditional  occupations; help women obtain  soft skills and industry-specific  training; and help employers and  labor unions recruit, place, and  retain women in registered  apprenticeship programs that lead  to nontraditional occupations.
Women who are seeking to enroll in a  preapprenticeship program, an  apprenticeship training program, or a  nontraditional occupation must be at  least 16 years old and must satisfy the  apprenticeship program sponsor that  they have sufficient ability, aptitude,  and education to master the rudiments  of the trade/occupation and to  satisfactorily complete the related  theoretical instruction required in the  program.
This program’s eligibility criteria were modified by the Recovery Act.
Also known as the Native Employment Works program.
section_title: Appendix XII: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix XIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Appendix XIV: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix XV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Patrick Dibattista (Assistant Director) and Paul Schearf (Analyst-in- Charge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Sherwin Chapman, Caitlin  Croake, and Chad Williams made significant contributions to this report,  in all aspects. In addition, Pamela Davidson provided technical support in  design and methodology; Jill Lacey provided technical support in survey  design and survey research; Joanna Chan and Julia Kennon provided data  analysis; Alex Galuten provided legal support; Mimi Nguyen provided  graphic design assistance; and Kathleen van Gelder assisted in the  message and report development.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and  Performance Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington,  D.C.: April 18, 2003.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Overlapping Programs  Indicate Need for Closer Examination of Structure. GAO-01-71.  Washington, D.C.: October 13, 2000.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Information Crosswalk on  163 Employment Training Programs. GAO/HEHS-95-85FS. Washington,  D.C.: February 14, 1995.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to  Reduce Costs, Streamline the Bureaucracy, and Improve Results.  GAO/T-HEHS-95-53. Washington, D.C.: January 10, 1995.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlap Among Programs  Raises Questions About Efficiency. GAO/HEHS-94-193. Washington, D.C.:  July 11, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements  Underscore Need for Change. GAO/T-HEHS-94-120. Washington, D.C.:  March 10, 1994.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Major Overhaul is  Needed. GAO/T-HEHS-94-109. Washington, D.C.: March 3, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Can  Add Unnecessary Administrative Costs. GAO/HEHS-94-80. Washington,  D.C.: January 28, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements  Hamper Delivery of Services. GAO/HEHS-94-78. Washington, D.C.:  January 28, 1994.