National Emergency Grants: Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award Timeliness and Data Collection, but Further Steps Can Improve Process
Published: 2006-09-05T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Between January 2004 and December 2005, more than 30,000 mass layoffs involving 50 or more workers occurred in the United States, causing more than 3.4 million workers to lose their jobs. National emergency grants expand services to laid-off workers when other state and federal programs are insufficient to meet their needs. GAO assessed (1) whether Labor has shortened grant award times since GAO's 2004 report and was meeting own timeliness goal, (2) the uniformity of the program data that Labor now collects, and (3) Labor's oversight of national emergency grant projects. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed information for program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of 2005 and compared it with data collected for program years 2000- 2002.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: We found that Labor's new electronic application system has, on average, shortened award processing time and most national emergency grants were awarded within Labor's goal of 30 working days as measured by GAO--from the time the application is submitted to the issuance of the award letter. In program year 2004, Labor averaged 25 working days to award grants, in contrast to program years 2000-2002, when it averaged 50 working days. Moreover, in program year 2004, Labor awarded 70 percent of all grants within 30 working days, in contrast to 38 percent for program years 2000- 2002. Although Labor has improved the overall timeliness for awards, award times ranged from 1 to 90 working days and varied by type of grant. For example, disaster grants were awarded, on average, in 16 days, but regular grants were awarded, on average, in 45 days. Delays in obtaining funds adversely impacted some grantees' ability to provide services. Also, we found that Labor's electronic application system and its timeliness goal did not capture every phase of the award process. In addition, users of this system reported some technical problems. Labor has taken steps to improve its two main sources of data for assessing how grant funds are used--the quarterly progress reports and the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) database. Labor introduced a new electronic quarterly report system in program year 2004. Since then, grantees have generally been submitting uniform and consistent information. Also, our review of available WIASRD data for program year 2004 shows that at least 92 percent of states that received national emergency grants included information on these grants in their WIASRD submissions. Labor's regional offices oversee each project to track performance and compliance with program requirements by conducting various monitoring activities, including approving program operating plans, reviewing quarterly progress reports, and conducting site visits. However, Labor has not issued complete, program-specific guidance that would standardize monitoring practices across regions, states, and local areas and help ensure consistent practices. In addition, officials in most of the states and local areas we visited said that Labor does not regularly help disseminate information about how states and local areas are managing their national emergency grant projects.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Between January 2004 and December 2005, the United States experienced  more than 30,000 mass layoffs involving 50 or more workers, with more  than 3.4 million workers losing their jobs. These losses affected all types of  workers—including those working in the professional, service,  information processing, and manufacturing sectors—in every state in the  nation. To help supplement regular dislocated worker funding, the  Department of Labor (Labor) administers the National Emergency Grant  program. Authorized under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998,  national emergency grants provide temporary employment, training  assistance, and other supports to workers whose jobs were lost because of  major economic dislocations, such as plant closings or natural disasters,  such as floods and hurricanes. Dislocated workers can obtain temporary  employment performing clean-up activities after natural disasters, or  training—such as working with computers—to obtain the skills needed to  re-enter the workforce in a new occupation following a layoff. These  grants are time-limited discretionary awards to help states and local areas  provide employment and training services when basic formula WIA funds  are insufficient to meet the needs of dislocated workers.
In program year 2004—which began on July 1, 2004, and ended on June 30,  2005—and the first 2 quarters of program year 2005—July 1, 2005, to  December 31, 2005—Labor awarded about $342 million in grant funds  ($232 million for program year 2004 and $110 million for the first   2 quarters of program year 2005). Most of these funds were provided as  disaster grants for victims of hurricanes and floods. Grantees used these  funds to provide temporary employment and humanitarian aid such as  water and other necessities to individuals who lost their jobs as a result of  these natural disasters. In addition, about $30 million of program year 2004  funds were awarded to help states and localities mitigate anticipated job  losses from military base realignments and closures. These base  realignment and closure (BRAC) grants funded activities to help states  initiate early community planning to provide assistance to large numbers  of workers who might lose their jobs due to BRAC decisions. In addition,  regular national emergency grants provided training, often through  community colleges, and support services, such as psychological or  financial counseling, for workers unemployed due to mass layoffs.
In April 2004, we reported that services to dislocated workers were being  affected by delays in awarding national emergency grants in program years  2000 through 2002.  We identified weaknesses in Labor’s processing and  management of national emergency grants, particularly with respect to the  timeliness with which they were awarded and the quality of data collected  regarding how grant funds were being used. In light of these problems,  Congress mandated that we examine the program’s current  administration. Our objectives were to (1) determine whether Labor has  shortened grant award times since our 2004 report and has been able to  meet its own goal for awarding grants in 30 working days, (2) examine the  uniformity of the program data that Labor is currently collecting, and   (3) assess Labor’s monitoring and oversight of national emergency grant  projects. To obtain national information on Labor’s application processing,  data collection, and monitoring activities, we collected and analyzed  information on grants awarded in program year 2004 and the first   2 quarters of program year 2005. We examined grants from this time  period because program year 2004 was the first year that Labor  implemented a new electronic application system designed to improve  grant award timeliness. We calculated the number of days it took Labor to  award grants from the grantees’ perspective. We began counting on the  day the application was submitted and ended on the day the award letter  was sent by Labor. We then compared our findings with the results of our  prior study to determine if there were changes in processing time. To  assess the quality of the data that Labor currently collects, we interviewed  officials in headquarters and examined quarterly progress reports to  determine the completeness and uniformity of this information. We  assessed the reliability of Labor’s data and concluded they were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. We also examined  official grant files and reviewed relevant program documents. We  conducted site visits in four states (Florida, Maine, Oregon, and Texas).  We chose these states because they received substantial national  emergency grant funding in program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of  program year 2005; represented different geographical regions; and  received grants addressing a variety of dislocation events, including plant  closings, natural disasters, out-sourcing, and military base realignments.  To evaluate Labor’s monitoring activities, we conducted semi-structured  interviews with state and local officials involved in monitoring and  regional office officials in four of Labor’s six regional offices that are  responsible for monitoring national emergency grants. We selected these  regions because they monitored activities in the states that we visited. See  appendix I for a detailed discussion of our scope and methodology. Our  work was conducted between September 2005 and July 2006 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: WIA authorizes the National Emergency Grant program and funds the  program through its dislocated worker funding stream. This funding  stream is one of three specified by WIA to fund services for its client  groups—dislocated workers, youth, and adults. Dislocated workers  include individuals who have been terminated or laid off, or who have  received a notice of termination or layoff, individuals who were self- employed but are unemployed as a result of general economic conditions  in the community or natural disasters, and unemployed or underemployed  homemakers who are no longer supported by family members. Under  WIA, the Secretary of Labor retains 20 percent of dislocated worker funds  in a national reserve account to be used for national emergency grants,  demonstrations, and technical assistance and allots the remaining funds to  each of the states, local workforce boards, and other entities that  demonstrate to the Secretary the capacity to respond to the circumstances  relating to particular dislocations. Of the amount reserved by the Secretary  in any program year, at least 85 percent of the Secretary’s national reserve  must be used for national emergency grants (see fig. 1). During program  year 2004, this amount was approximately $232 million and $110 million  during the first 2 quarters of program year 2005, for a total of $342 million.
National emergency grants expand WIA services that are available to  dislocated workers when dislocated worker formula funds are insufficient  to meet the needs of affected workers. Under WIA, dislocated workers can  receive three levels of services—core, intensive, and training. Core  services include job search and placement assistance, preliminary skill  assessments, and the provision of labor market information, and are  routinely available to anyone seeking assistance through a WIA service  center. Dislocated workers who need additional services to find work can  receive intensive services, such as case management and comprehensive  assessments. In addition, dislocated workers may also qualify for training  services, including occupational skills training, on-the-job training, skill  upgrading, and entrepreneurial training.
Typically, state workforce agencies apply for national emergency grants  and distribute funds to local workforce boards in areas affected by the  dislocations. These boards, in turn, usually contract with organizations  that provide services or administrative support. Grantees can apply for  grants that fund three major types of projects:  regular grants to retrain workers who have lost their jobs because of plant  closings, layoffs, or military base realignments or closures;    disaster grants to provide temporary employment, humanitarian services,  and retraining for workers affected by natural disasters and other  catastrophic events; and   dual enrollment grants to provide supportive assistance such as case  management services and vocational assessments to workers certified by  Labor to receive training under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform  Act of 2002. These are usually for workers who have lost their jobs  because of increased imports from, or shifts in production to, foreign  countries.
Like other programs authorized under WIA, national emergency grant  projects must be designed to achieve performance outcomes that support  Labor’s performance goals. Also, Labor requires grantees to collect data  from local projects, certify the accuracy of the data, and use them to  complete various reports, such as the quarterly progress reports for  national emergency grants and the state’s WIASRD data submissions.  Quarterly progress reports include project-level information on actual  performance to date—for example, the number of individuals participating  in a project; the services provided, such as intensive services or training;  and the number who entered employment. WIASRD is a national database  of individual records containing characteristics, activities, and outcome  information for all enrolled participants who receive services or benefits  under WIA, including national emergency grants. The database includes  the services and training that each participant received and information on  their subsequent employment status and wages. In coordination with  federal agencies, the Office of Management and Budget developed uniform  evaluation measures, called “common measures,” for job training and  employment programs and other cross-cutting programs. The common  measures were designed to institute uniform definitions for  performance—such as the percentage of participants who become  employed—across federal workforce programs. Beginning in July 2005,  national emergency grant projects became subject to the common  measures and Labor expected grantees to include them in its WIASRD  data collection and reporting activities for program year 2004.
In program year 2004, Labor funded a special type of grant, called a base  realignment and closure (BRAC) planning grant. These grants provided  resources to states and communities to plan for anticipated base closures,  unlike other regular grants that provide more general employment-related  services for dislocated workers. Accordingly, states that could be affected  by BRAC actions were eligible to apply for national emergency grant  funds. Labor issued guidance in May 2005 that explained the procedures  for obtaining these grants. This guidance also specified that applicants  must submit their applications by June 10, 2005.
Labor’s Office of National Response, in the Employment and Training  Administration (ETA), administers the National Emergency Grant  program. Headquarters and regional staff share responsibility for program  administration and oversight. At headquarters, officials make grant award  decisions and determine whether grants will be awarded in a single  payment or in increments. For grants disbursed in incremental payments,  grantees are required to submit supplemental information along with their  requests for future funding increments. Labor has established an internal  goal of making these decisions within 30 working days. After grants are  awarded, regional officials assume the lead role in conducting monitoring  and oversight activities. For example, after the grant is approved, regional  officials review and approve the project operating plan and budget,  conduct at least one site visit that examines project activities, and review  quarterly progress reports and financial reports.
subsections: section_title: Distribution and Uses of National Emergency Grants
paragraphs: In program year 2004, Labor distributed about $232 million from the  dislocated worker fund for national emergency grants to 43 states, the  District of Columbia, and three territories (see fig. 2). The funding levels of  these grants varied greatly. Labor awarded the largest proportion of funds  to Florida—$76 million in grant funds, or 33 percent of the program’s total  funds awarded during that year—mostly in the form of disaster grants to  help the state respond to the needs of workers displaced as a result of  hurricane damage. Ohio and California each received over $20 million in  grants, primarily to help them meet the needs of workers displaced as a  result of floods and storm disasters. Other states, such as Maine and  Massachusetts, each received over $6 million, mainly to help them meet  the needs of workers dislocated because of plant closings and downsizing,  and Oregon received over $2 million, in part to help workers dislocated  because of competition from foreign countries.
Over the past 5 program years, Labor has awarded proportionally more of  its national emergency grant funds for disaster grants and a smaller  proportion for regular and dual-enrollment grants. In program year 2000,  Labor awarded only 4 percent of its funds for disaster grants. In contrast,  in program year 2004, Labor awarded about 57 percent of grant funds for  disaster grants and 29 percent for regular grants (see fig. 3). For the first   2 quarters of program year 2005, Labor awarded 92 percent of all the funds  it awarded during those quarters for disaster projects in 11 states— Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,  North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas—largely in response to  damage and dislocations resulting from Hurricane Katrina. During these   2 quarters, Labor awarded about 8 percent for regular grants.
section_title: Labor Has Shortened Award Times, but Does Not Track the Entire Award Process
paragraphs: Labor’s new electronic application system and the streamlined  information requirements for national emergency grant applications have,  on average, shortened the time it takes to award grants to 25 working days  and helped Labor award 70 percent of the grants in program year 2004  within 30 working days from the submission of the application to the  issuance of the award letter. However, regular national emergency grants  (regular grants) took longer to award—45 working days on average—and  most were not awarded within Labor’s 30-working-day goal. Moreover,  Labor’s new system and its stated goal for awarding grants do not take  into account important steps in the award process, such as obtaining  approval from key Labor officials and issuing the award letter to the  grantee. These steps added 11 days on average to the award process and  thus hampered Labor’s ability to accurately evaluate its performance.  Further, the steps that are excluded involve actions that are of great  importance from the grantees’ perspective—the Secretary’s final approval  and the award letter notifying them of the amount of money awarded. In  addition, some users reported technical problems with the system that  have affected its convenience and efficiency.
subsections: section_title: Labor’s New Electronic System Has Improved Grant Award Times
paragraphs: During program years 2000-2002, Labor took 50 working days, on average,  to award national emergency grants—as measured from the date an  application is submitted until the date an award letter is issued. In  program year 2004, Labor reduced its average award processing time to   25 days for all types of grants—decreasing the average processing time for  regular grants from 63 to 45 days and for disaster grants from 34 to   16 days. Although Labor averaged 29 working days to award dual  enrollment grants in 2004—longer than the 14 days it averaged during  program years 2000-2002—most were awarded within its 30-day goal and  these grants comprised less than 10 percent of the grants awarded that  year (see fig. 4).
Overall, Labor awarded 70 percent of all grants within 30 working days  compared with 38 percent in program years 2000-2002. Also in program  year 2004, Labor met this goal for 100 percent of the BRAC grants and for  91 percent of all disaster grants. In contrast, awards for regular grants took  longer. Processing time for these grants averaged 45 working days, and  Labor awarded only 16 percent of these grants within its 30-working-day  goal (see fig. 5).
The new electronic system has facilitated improvements in award  processing time in three ways. First, because applicants cannot submit an  application on this system without completing all required data fields,  Labor no longer has to return incomplete applications. Second, because  applications are electronic, submissions are nearly instantaneous and the  format allows Labor and applicants to exchange information more  efficiently than the former paper-based system. Third, under the new  system, the applicants are only required to provide basic information— including project type, planned number of participants, planned support  services, and the project operator. Grantees receiving regular grants have  90 days from the grant approval date to submit project operating plans,  staffing plans, and budgets. In the case of disaster grants, grantees have   60 days from the grant approval date to submit the required information.
Although average processing times have decreased in program year 2004,  the time to award grants varied widely, ranging from 1 to 90 working days,  with some types of grants taking longer than others. Several factors likely  contributed to this variance. For example, several disaster grants were  processed very quickly—within 1 to 2 days—because of the urgent need  for funds in areas impacted by storms and flooding. Also, the 39 BRAC  grants were awarded, on average, in only 14 days, reflecting the short  period of time that was available to submit and process them. In order to  be eligible for BRAC grants, states had to be included on the Department  of Defense’s preliminary base realignment and closure list, issued on   May 13, 2005, and also had to follow Labor’s special guidance for these  grants that specified that applications were due by June 10. Because the  funds for these grants were reserved from program year 2004 money,  Labor had to award them by June 30, the end of that program year. In  contrast, questions about the appropriateness of project applications  delayed the approval of other grants. For one project we visited, officials  reported that approval for an application to address a plant closure took  46 working days (about 2 months), largely because Labor questioned the  amount of funds they requested and required them to prepare additional  information to justify the costs. In addition, some grantees reported that  delays in obtaining funds adversely impacted their ability to provide  services, because individuals who needed employment left the affected  area to search for work in other places or found other jobs instead of  waiting for grant funds to become available. For example, one project we  visited was only serving 20 of 50 eligible participants according to project  officers, because workers could not afford to wait for services, left the  area, or found other jobs.
section_title: Award Processing Time Was More Consistent during Program Year 2004
paragraphs: Labor’s award processing times were more consistent across quarters in  program year 2004 than in program years 2000-2002. In program year 2004,  the average number of working days that Labor took to award grants for  the first 3 quarters ranged from 34 to 41 days, and only 16 days during the  fourth quarter. In program years 2000-2002, the number of days to award  grants during the first 3 quarters varied more widely—from 61 to 74 days  (see table 1).
In addition, in program year 2004, the quarter in which an application was  awarded corresponded more closely to the quarter in which it was  submitted. This is in contrast to program years 2000-2002, when most  awards took place in the fourth quarter despite the fact that applications  were received at a fairly steady rate during the last 3 quarters of the  program year.
section_title: Average Award Times Improved in the First 2 Quarters of Program Year 2005
paragraphs: During the first half of program year 2005, Labor awarded grants in   21 working days, on average, and 67 percent were awarded within   30 working days. The overwhelming majority of these grants were in  response to Hurricane Katrina, many of which were awarded within a few  working days. For example, Louisiana submitted its application on  September 1, 2005, and Labor awarded the grant 1 day later. The quick  approval time for most of the Katrina-related grants reflected the  hurricane’s severity, the commitment of Labor officials to provide  assistance as quickly as possible, and the ability of most grantees to  submit streamlined, emergency applications. Under Labor’s regulations,  grantees may file an abbreviated application to receive emergency funding  within 15 days of an event that was declared a disaster by the Federal  Emergency Management Agency.
Grantees in the states that we visited had limited experience using the new  electronic application system in requesting incremental payments.  Moreover, Labor awarded only a relatively small number of increments in  program year 2004 and the first half of program year 2005. Approximately  60 percent of grants were awarded in one payment during program year  2004 and about 75 percent during the first 2 quarters of program year 2005.  Also, the period we examined was less than a year after most grantees had  received their initial award and, therefore, most had not yet submitted  applications for their next increments.
section_title: Labor’s Electronic System Does Not Capture the Entire Award Process
paragraphs: Despite improvements in average award timeliness, Labor’s goal for  awarding new grant applications and its electronic application system  exclude important steps in the award process. More specifically, the time  needed to obtain the Secretary’s approval and issue award notification  letters to grantees is not captured by the system and is not counted as part  of the 30-working-day goal. Labor’s electronic application system captures  the time from the application submission date through the date that its  Office of National Response (ONR) approves the grant application.  However, from the grantees’ point of view, the actual process continues  until the grant is reviewed and approved by the Secretary and an award  letter is issued (see fig. 6). Our prior work also identified this problem with  Labor’s measurement process. In program year 2004 and the first half of  program year 2005, these steps added 11 working days, on average, to  award processing times. For example, officials in one state we visited  reported that, although they received verbal confirmation that an  application was approved, the service provider would not begin services  without formal assurance that they would be paid. Consequently, services  were delayed for more than 2 weeks until the official award letter was  received.
section_title: Users of Labor’s Electronic Application System Reported Some Difficulties
paragraphs: Officials in all of the states we visited told us that, while their experience  with the new electronic application system has generally been positive,  they have encountered some technical problems. These included minor  problems that made the application process more difficult, as well as more  serious issues that forced grantees to submit applications outside of the  system. Some states had problems resolving technical questions because,  for example, the system would not allow users and Labor’s technical  assistance staff to view the same screen and data simultaneously. Officials  in one state described a series of delays they experienced in submitting an  application because they could not view a discrepancy in how a zip code  had been entered on two different screens.
Officials in all four of the states we visited also reported more general  problems, including a lack of flexibility when modifying an existing  application. For example, officials in three states told us that they had to  adjust data to fit the system—in one case, by adding up data on  participants and services provided at different service centers and entering  it as information from one service center—-and that the system did not  allow them to report changes in plans accurately. Officials in one of these  states told us they could not use the system for one of their applications  because several of its required fields, such as the number of participants,  did not apply to their application. In addition, officials that we interviewed  in all four of our site visits reported that Labor has not systematically  queried users for feedback on the problems faced while using the new  electronic application system. Several officials felt that minor changes to  the system, such as providing more room to explain unusual features of  some projects and better directions regarding how to proceed from one  screen to another, would make the system more efficient and easier to use.
section_title: Labor Has Made Progress in Collecting More Uniform Program Data
paragraphs: Labor has taken actions to improve its two sources of information on  national emergency grants—the quarterly progress reports and WIASRD.  In program year 2004, Labor implemented a new electronic quarterly  progress report system and required all grantees to use this system  beginning in January 2005. Since these actions have been taken, our  analysis suggests that most grantees have generally submitted required  quarterly progress reports to Labor electronically and have certified and  reported the required data elements. In addition, in August 2004, Labor  issued guidance that clarified that states were required to include  information on national emergency grants as part of their submissions to  WIASRD. In that year, 85 percent of all states that received national  emergency grants submitted national emergency grant data to WIASRD.
subsections: section_title: Labor Has Taken Steps to Improve Quarterly Report Data
paragraphs: Labor’s new electronic quarterly progress report system has enhanced its  ability to collect, review, and manage quarterly report information. More  specifically, the new system requires grantees to submit data  electronically, using a standard format in which all data fields are defined.  As a result, the system has improved the uniformity and consistency of the  progress report data Labor collects compared with our findings from  program years 2000-2002. Labor also issued guidance specifying that  beginning January 1, 2005, grantees would be required to submit the  progress reports using the new system for all grants awarded after   July 1, 2004 (the beginning of program year 2004). We found that during  program year 2004, grantees generally submitted electronic quarterly  progress reports as required. By contrast, for program years 2000-2002, we  could not provide information on the extent that grantees provided  quarterly progress reports because the reports were not collected on an  integrated system and were not available electronically (see table 2).
The new progress report system has also improved the completeness of  the data that Labor collects. During program year 2004, we found that all  grantees that were expected to provide data did in fact complete each of  the required data fields. Under the new system, grantees must enter basic  information—such as counts of participants, counts of services that are  provided, and expenditures at the grantee and project level—before they  can submit their reports electronically. By contrast, when we examined  reports submitted for program years 2000-2002, we found that the  quarterly report data were generally incomplete. For example, of 13 states  for which we sampled progress report data, only about half reported the  number enrolled in core and intensive services and just one reported  expenditures by type of service (see table 3).
section_title: Labor Has Increased the Amount of Information on Grants in WIASRD
paragraphs: After Labor issued its August 2004 guidance on data submission to  WIASRD, the level of compliance with this requirement substantially  increased. We found that 44 of the 48 states that likely fell under this  requirement (90 percent) submitted data as required during program year  2004. Officials in all four states we visited reported that, overall, they did  not encounter problems submitting data to WIASRD as required by Labor.  In contrast, in program year 2001, only one of the six states that received  the largest proportions of national emergency grant funds submitted data  to WIASRD (see table 4).
Although grantees are complying with the WIA data submission  requirements, some questions about the reliability of these data remain. As  we reported in November 2005, Labor requires states to validate the data  it submits to WIASRD, but it does not have methods in place to review  state validation efforts nor does it hold states accountable for complying  with its data requirements.
section_title: Labor Monitors Projects for Compliance with Basic Program Requirements, but Some States Reported That Better Guidance Is Needed
paragraphs: Labor’s regional offices oversee each project to track its performance and  compliance with basic program rules and requirements, but several state  and local officials we interviewed told us that more specific guidance is  needed. Regional officials conduct a variety of monitoring activities,  including approving program operating plans, reviewing quarterly progress  reports, and conducting site visits. However, Labor has not issued  complete, program-specific guidance that would standardize monitoring  practices across regions, states, and local areas and help ensure consistent  practices. As a result, some states have developed their own monitoring  tools. In addition, officials in most of the states and local areas we visited  said that Labor does not regularly help disseminate information about how  states and local areas are managing and monitoring their national  emergency grant projects.
subsections: section_title: Labor’s Regional Offices Monitor Projects for Compliance, but Labor Has Yet to Issue Complete Guidance for the Program
paragraphs: To ensure that projects effectively serve dislocated workers, Labor, states,  and local areas carry out a variety of monitoring activities throughout the  lifecycle of a project to track its progress toward meeting its stated  purpose and goals. Labor officials in the four regions we visited told us  that they follow the same general monitoring procedures for all grants, but  tailor them as necessary for high-risk or complex grants. At the beginning  of the grant, and at each quarter during the lifecycle of the grant, regional  officials assess the potential risk level of the grant. They also review the  project operating plan and analyze quarterly financial and progress reports  to assess their timeliness, accuracy, and effectiveness in providing  services to dislocated workers. Regional officials we interviewed told us  they generally conduct their most comprehensive review at the project’s  midpoint by visiting grantees and project operators. According to Labor’s  guidance on administering the National Emergency Grant program, a  major purpose of the on-site review for incremental grants is to review the  need for funds to complete the project. The guidance also states that  Labor officials will assess how well a grantee and its project operators are  meeting the major requirements of the program. These include participant  eligibility, financial management controls, project management,  effectiveness of support services, and job placement services. For disaster  grants, they also include temporary jobs for dislocated workers. The  regional officials reported that they usually meet with state and local  workforce officials, including project operators and dislocated workers  enrolled in the project, and conduct an exit interview with cognizant  officials to discuss their findings.
According to officials in the four regions that we interviewed, Labor  modifies monitoring and reporting procedures as necessary to ensure that  these reviews are appropriate in terms of the special characteristics of  some grants. For example, one regional official said they visit projects  designated as “high risk” within 90 days after grant award, rather than  waiting until the project’s midpoint, and work closely with the grantee  throughout the project. Another Labor official said they monitor a grantee  more closely if they identify potential problems. For example, if a grantee  is late in submitting its quarterly progress reports or falls behind in  enrolling dislocated workers in a project, the regional office will conduct  more extensive monitoring such as telephoning the grantees or conducting  additional site visits to determine the cause. Labor can also require  grantees to submit reports in addition to their regular quarterly progress  reports for unusually large or highly visible grants, such as those awarded  to serve Hurricane Katrina victims. According to workforce officials in two  states that received Katrina grants and a cognizant regional official, they  initially had to submit numerous reports with different information on a  daily basis, then every 3 days, and then on a weekly, biweekly, and  monthly basis.
Workforce officials in most of the states and local areas we visited told us  that Labor’s oversight activities were generally beneficial and that the  monitoring activities often provided them with helpful feedback for  managing their grants. For example, an official in one local area said that  Labor’s monitoring resulted in them strengthening their requirements for  maintaining critical documents in participant files. In this area, local  officials routinely required caseworkers to check a sample of their  coworkers’ files to ensure that they were complete and contained  sufficient documentation to justify the services that were provided in  order to prepare for federal monitoring.
Despite the general satisfaction with Labor’s monitoring efforts, we found  that the guidance states and local areas received varied widely. Labor  issued a draft monitoring guide specifically for national emergency grants  in late 2005, which was based on its generic Core Monitoring Guide.  Officials in three of the four states we visited said that they had received a  copy of the draft monitoring guide, but none of the local areas we visited  had. In fact, one regional office official we interviewed had not yet  received a copy of the guide. Further, state officials told us that they had  received different types of information from Labor to help them prepare  for their on-site monitoring visits. For example, officials in all four states  said that regional officials sent a list before their visit of the documents  and participant files that they needed to review. An official in one state  said that they had not always received written guidance on how to  conduct their own monitoring or prepare for Labor’s monitoring visits.
To compensate for the lack of consistent, complete guidance, all four  states we visited had developed their own tools for monitoring local areas,  and many of the local areas used their state’s tool or a modified version of  it to monitor their service providers. For example, one local area official  told us they modified the state’s tool by adding procedures for reviewing  the documents that support a dislocated worker’s eligibility to receive  services. An official in another state told us that their agency expanded the  tool that it uses for its 90-day on-site monitoring visit for its mid-point  review by including a review of the documents in participant files and  project cost.
section_title: Labor Has Not Disseminated Information on Promising Practices
paragraphs: Officials in most states and local areas we visited said they do not  currently have opportunities to share information about promising  practices for managing and monitoring national emergency grant projects,  but many expressed an interest in having such opportunities. Workforce  officials in one state and six local areas said that having Labor facilitate  opportunities for disseminating such information would help project  operators manage their projects more efficiently. For example, according  to officials in one local area, they had experience operating grant projects  that served dislocated workers in the agricultural sector, but not in the  manufacturing sector. When faced with a layoff in a computer chip  manufacturing plant, they had to take time to research potential job  openings and skills required for jobs in this sector. Having information on  how other areas served workers laid off by manufacturing companies  would have helped shorten the time they spent developing the project and  allowed them to serve workers more quickly. Officials in one state also  suggested that Labor could help by creating a central repository of  documents used in managing projects, such as examples of agreements  used to establish temporary worksites for disaster victims. Although Labor  has a Web site for sharing promising practices with the WIA community,  Labor has not used this tool for facilitating improved information sharing  about national emergency grants.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: National emergency grants are an important tool for helping states and  localities respond to mass layoffs and disasters that result in large  numbers of dislocated workers. When major layoffs and disasters such as  hurricanes or floods occur, states and local areas must respond quickly to  ensure that dislocated workers receive the services they need to re-enter  the workforce. While the National Emergency Grant program is relatively  small, the reemployment activities it funds are important for workers who  have been dislocated due to mass layoffs or natural disasters. In this  regard, it is critical for grant funds to reach program participants in a  timely manner. By implementing an automated application system, Labor  has, on average, substantially decreased the time required to award  national emergency grants. However, because this system does not  capture the entire grant process—including the time taken for the  Secretary to issue final award letters—there is room for further  improvement. Moreover, while the system has improved the timeliness of  grant awards, some state and local officials have encountered problems  using the system. Effective management and oversight requires a  mechanism for states and localities to provide feedback to Labor, to  ensure that potential system weaknesses are identified and addressed.
Effective monitoring is also a critical component of grant management.  While Labor’s monitoring activities appear to provide reasonable  assurance that grant funds are being used for their intended purpose,  some state and local officials said that standardized guidance would be  beneficial. In particular, once Labor finalizes its monitoring guide for  grants, state and local officials responsible for grant administration and  oversight could benefit from more consistent, specific federal guidance.  Moreover, state and local officials could benefit from innovative project  management practices that have promoted efficiency and effectiveness in  other states where grant funds have been awarded. However, without  disseminating such information through a centralized mechanism, it is  difficult for state and local officials to learn of promising practices in other  jurisdictions and use this information early in the planning process.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: In order for Labor to better manage the grant award process and system,  accurately assess the time it takes to award grant funds, and improve its  guidance to states and local areas, we recommend that the Secretary of  Labor take additional actions. In particular, Labor should    extend its electronic application system and its own timeliness  measurement process to capture the entirety of the award process from  the perspective of grant applicants, specifically through final approval and  issuance of award letters by the Secretary;   solicit information from users of the application system to guide future  refinements to this system;   distribute more complete guidance and tools for monitoring grant    explore cost-effective ways to disseminate information to states and local  areas to help them learn about promising practices for managing national  grant projects.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: The Department of Labor commented on a draft of this report, indicating  that it agrees with our findings and the intent of all four recommendations  (see app. III).  Labor’s comments also highlighted some actions that it has  already taken or plans to take. Labor reported that it has recently  implemented a new version of its electronic application system that has  expanded its capacity to manage all elements of the application process.  However, Labor did not directly address our recommendation that the  system be expanded to capture the entirety of the awards process,  including final approval and issuance of the award letters by the Secretary.  In addition, Labor agreed that information from users is needed to guide  future refinements to the system but noted that a survey of all users might  require a formal paperwork clearance process and, therefore, would  provide less timely information than its present system involving user tests  with selected grantees. While we agree that information from user tests is  useful, we believe feedback from all grantees would better inform future  enhancements. Regarding our recommendation that it distribute more  complete guidance and monitoring tools, Labor explained that it is  currently  field-testing a monitoring guide for national emergency grant  projects, and plans to release this guide by September 2006.  We believe  such a guide could be an important step toward establishing consistent  monitoring practices. Also, Labor concurred with our recommendation  that it explore cost-effective ways to disseminate information to states and  local areas to help them learn about promising practices for managing  national emergency grant projects. In particular,  Labor noted that it has  relied upon venues such as national conferences and forums to facilitate  the sharing of information among grantees.  Labor did not provide  technical comments on the draft.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor and other  interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon  request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s  home page at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me on 202-512-7215 or at nilsens@gao.gov if you or  members of your staff have any questions about this report. Contact points  for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to (1) determine whether Labor has shortened grant  award times since our 2004 report and has been able to meet its own goal  of 30 working days for awarding grants, (2) examine the uniformity of the  program data that Labor is currently collecting, and (3) assess Labor’s  monitoring and oversight of national emergency grant projects.
subsections: section_title: Timeliness Assessment
paragraphs: To examine how long it takes Labor to award national emergency grants  and determine whether Labor is meeting its 30-working-day timeliness  goal, we obtained a listing from Labor of all grants awarded during  program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of program year 2005. We  selected this time period because Labor implemented its new electronic  application system and streamlined application data requirements at the  beginning of program year 2004. We computed (1) the number of working  days between the date of the original grant application and the date of the  award letter to determine overall grant award times and award times by  type of grant and (2) the percentage of grants that were awarded within  Labor’s timeliness goal of 30 working days. We supplemented data from  Labor’s electronic database with data from its hard copy grant files,  including information contained in the award letters for all grants awarded  during program year 2004, because the application system did not contain  data for all steps in the awards process. We excluded two grants because  they were not submitted electronically.
In order to compare the award processing times for program year 2004  with program years 2000-2002, we converted calendar days to working  days because Labor’s present day goal is expressed in working days.
section_title: Analysis of Program Data
paragraphs: To determine the degree that grantees submitted quarterly progress  reports with the required data elements, we analyzed the extent that  grantees submitted quarterly progress reports by quarter and the extent  that grantees completed required data fields during program year 2004. We  eliminated the BRAC planning grants from these analyses because  quarterly report data were designed to capture information on participants  and services, not planning activities. We compared the completeness of  data submitted during program year 2004 with the completeness of data  submitted during program years 2000-2002.
To assess the extent that grantees complied with requirements to summit  data to the WIASRD database, we identified states that received national  emergency grants in programs years 2002, 2003, and 2004, and, therefore,  were likely to have participants that left projects in program year 2004. We  examined the WIASRD database to see if it contained program year 2004  data for these states. We compared the percentage of grantees that  provided national emergency grant data to the database in 2004 with the  percentage that provided data in 2000, based on the sample of grantees  that were selected for our previous analysis in 2004.
section_title: Assessment of Data Quality
paragraphs: To assess the reliability of data about award processing times, we  interviewed officials responsible for compiling these data. We verified the  accuracy of the application dates that Labor gave us by comparing them  with dates on the actual applications and dates on the electronic  application system. Also, we drew a 10-percent random sample of all  grants awarded in program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of 2005 and  verified information in the electronic system with information in the  official hard copy grant files. To assess the reliability of information in the  electronic quarterly progress report system, we examined materials  related to data entry and examined the completeness of data submissions.  Also, we interviewed state and local officials regarding their data  collection procedures and verification processes. We determined the data  were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report.
section_title: Interviews with Labor Officials
paragraphs: We interviewed officials in the Office of National Response and the Office  of Grant and Contract Management in Labor’s Employment and Training  Administration to obtain information on application processing, program  polices, and grants management. We also interviewed key staff in the  Office of Field Operations and officials in four regional offices where we  conducted site visits.  They are in charge of monitoring and oversight to  obtain information on data reporting, oversight requirements, and  monitoring procedures. In addition, we interviewed officials representing  Labor’s contractor to obtain technical information on the electronic  application system.
section_title: Site Visits
paragraphs: To learn more about the application system, data requirements, and  oversight from the grantees’, service providers’, and dislocated workers’  points of view, we conducted site visits to four states—Florida, Maine,  Oregon, and Texas. We selected these states because they each received a  substantial amount of national emergency grant funding and, together,  represented different geographical regions, had received a diversified mix  of regular, BRAC, disaster, and dual enrollment grants. (See table 5.) On  these site visits, we conducted in-depth interviews with state workforce  officials, representatives of local workforce investment boards, and  service providers. In addition, we visited four work sites that provided  temporary employment to individuals who had lost their jobs as a result of  Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma.
Our work was conducted between September 2005 and July 2006 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Summary of Funds Awarded for Regular, Disaster, and Dual Enrollment Grants during Program Year 2004
section_title: Appendix III Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Jeremy D. Cox, Assistant Director; Kathleen D. White, Analyst-in-Charge;  Carolyn S. Blocker; and Daniel C. Cain served as team members and made  major contributions to all aspects of this report. In addition,   Catherine Hurley and Jean McSween advised on methodological and  analytic aspects of this report; Susan Bernstein advised on report  preparation; Jessica Botsford advised on legal issues; Yunsian Tai helped  conduct data analyses; Robert Alarapon provided graphic design  assistance; and Katharine Leavitt verified our findings.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Trade Adjustment Assistance: Labor Should Take Action to Ensure  Performance Data Are Complete, Accurate, and Accessible. GAO-06-496.  Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006.
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Most Workers in Five Layoffs Received  Services, but Better Outreach Needed on New Benefits. GAO-06-43.  Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2006.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to  Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. GAO-06-82.  Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but  Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650.  Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005.
Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment  Services to Claimants. GAO-05-413. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative  Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting  Requirements. GAO-05-539. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005.
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms Have Accelerated Training  Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges Remain. GAO-04-1012.  Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed  Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help.  GAO-04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.
National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve  Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant  Awards and Improve Data. GAO-04-496. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004.
National Emergency Grants: Services to Workers Hampered by Delays in  Grant Awards, but Labor Is Initiating Steps Actions to Improve Grant  Award Process. GAO-04-222. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance  Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness.  GAO-02-275. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Experiences of Six Trade-Impacted  Communities. GAO-01-838. Washington, D.C.: August 24, 2001.
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Trends, Outcomes, and Management  Issues in Dislocated Worker Programs. GAO-01-59. Washington, D.C.:  October 13, 2000.