Workforce Development: Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers Collaborate to Meet 21st Century Workforce Needs
Published: 2008-05-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In the future, businesses will demand workers with higher-level skills and more education. Community colleges are key providers of career and technical training as well as traditional academic education. These colleges can also play important roles in the one-stop system created by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), through which a variety of federally funded employment and training programs provide services. Given the importance of community colleges to workforce development, GAO was asked to examine (1) how community colleges meet the workforce training needs of their communities; (2) what community colleges do to integrate with the nation's one-stop system; (3) the conditions or practices that enhance or impede these efforts; and (4) the actions the Departments of Labor and Education have taken to encourage linkages between community colleges and the workforce investment system, including one-stops. To address these objectives, GAO visited 20 community colleges, surveyed one-stop centers and their associated workforce investment boards, and talked to Labor and Education officials. Labor and Education generally agreed with GAO's findings.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The community colleges that GAO visited developed various approaches and programs for career and technical training to meet the needs of industry sectors, individual employers, and certain types of students and workers. Through a variety of outreach, relationship building, and data collection efforts, community colleges have come to understand the specific training needs of key industries in their regions and use this information to keep programs current or develop new programs to address these needs. Community college activities include providing contract or customized training to the employees of specific employers; working with small businesses; and targeting training and education programs to specific populations, such as disadvantaged adults, high-school students transitioning to college, and one-stop clients. Many of the community colleges that GAO visited integrate with their one-stops by operating the one-stop centers, colocating college staff at the one-stop, and participating on workforce investment boards. Nationwide, GAO estimated that about 11 percent of one-stops are operated solely or jointly by a community college, while 34 percent have community college staff colocated at the center. Similarly, GAO estimated that, nationwide, 49 percent of local workforce investment boards have community college presidents represented on their boards. Some of the benefits of these arrangements include cost sharing and improved communication among participating programs. Officials at the colleges and one-stops that GAO visited reported also conducting other joint activities, such as strategic planning and data sharing. Community college and workforce officials cited state funding and leadership as factors that help integration between community colleges and the workforce system but identified WIA performance system measures and WIA funding issues as impediments. Under WIA, states and local workforce areas must meet performance levels in their Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs that can be difficult to obtain when serving some populations, such as those on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or youth, causing disincentives for the one-stops to serve them. In a 2004 report, GAO recommended that Labor develop a systematic way to account for differences in the population groups served by states' one-stop centers and apply it to all states when establishing their performance levels. Labor has not taken action on this recommendation; however, Labor officials stated that states may use their own adjustment models and that the department has worked to ensure consistency in the process. It is uncertain whether Labor and Education's efforts to build linkages between community colleges and the workforce system will be successful in encouraging community colleges to focus on workforce development. Labor's WIRED, High Growth, and Community Based grants aim, in part, to help community colleges and other workforce entities collaborate. As discussed in GAO's recent report on these grants, Labor's evaluations do not fully measure their effectiveness, and GAO recommends that Labor take steps to do so. Labor and Education jointly funded a $1.5 million initiative in 2006 to help build linkages between community colleges and the workforce system. The agencies did not conduct an evaluation, but plan to issue a report in 2008 about the participants' challenges and successes.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The United States is moving increasingly toward a knowledge-based  The United States is moving increasingly toward a knowledge-based  economy, requiring workers to have higher-level skills and more  economy, requiring workers to have higher-level skills and more  education. By 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts that  education. By 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts that  almost 54 percent of total job openings will be filled by those with some  almost 54 percent of total job openings will be filled by those with some  college education or a bachelor’s degree or higher. Furthermore, global  college education or a bachelor’s degree or higher. Furthermore, global  competition has resulted in companies laying off workers and moving  competition has resulted in companies laying off workers and moving  their operations to lower-cost locations, sometimes resulting in workers  their operations to lower-cost locations, sometimes resulting in workers  needing to be retrained for other occupations. The nation’s approximately  needing to be retrained for other occupations. The nation’s approximately  1,200 community colleges serve over 6.5 million students—a population  1,200 community colleges serve over 6.5 million students—a population  that has increased almost 24 percent since 1990. In addition to providing  that has increased almost 24 percent since 1990. In addition to providing  traditional academic programs, community colleges are providers of  traditional academic programs, community colleges are providers of  education and training for those seeking basic skills for entry into the  education and training for those seeking basic skills for entry into the  workforce as well as those seeking to acquire new skills or upgrade  workforce as well as those seeking to acquire new skills or upgrade  existing ones to obtain a different job or retain current employment.  existing ones to obtain a different job or retain current employment.
In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), requiring  In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), requiring  states and localities to bring together federally funded employment and  states and localities to bring together federally funded employment and  training programs into a comprehensive workforce investment system,  training programs into a comprehensive workforce investment system,  called the one-stop system. This system provides a range of employment  called the one-stop system. This system provides a range of employment  assistance for eligible individuals, including training. These individuals can  assistance for eligible individuals, including training. These individuals can  obtain training services from any approved training provider, which can  obtain training services from any approved training provider, which can  include community colleges. In addition to helping job seekers, the one- include community colleges. In addition to helping job seekers, the one- stop system also establishes relationships with employers to assist them in  stop system also establishes relationships with employers to assist them in  finding skilled workers. Four agencies—the Departments of Labor,  finding skilled workers. Four agencies—the Departments of Labor,  Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban  Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban  Development—fund and administer programs, which are mandatory  Development—fund and administer programs, which are mandatory  partners in the one-stop system. Labor is responsible for the largest  number of these programs, followed by Education, and is also responsible  for providing guidance to states and localities on delivering services  through the one-stop system. Other federal, state, local, and private sector  programs may also serve as partners with the approval of the local  workforce board, which is the governing entity for the one-stop system  within the local workforce investment area.
Community colleges can also be involved in other workforce programs  that Labor funds. Two of these programs are the High Growth Job Training  Initiative (High Growth) and the Community-Based Job Training Grants  (Community Based), which train workers for jobs projected to experience  growth or require new skill sets. A third program is the Workforce  Innovation and Regional Economic Development (WIRED) grants, which  can include developing a pipeline of skilled workers as one part of a  regional economic development strategy.
As Congress moves toward reauthorization of WIA, and given the  importance of community colleges to workforce development, the Senate  Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions requested that we  review community colleges’ roles in workforce training and the nation’s  workforce system. Specifically, we examined (1) how community colleges  meet the workforce training needs of their communities; (2) what  community colleges do to integrate with the nation’s one-stop system;     (3) the conditions or practices that enhance or impede these efforts; and  (4) the actions Labor and Education have taken to encourage linkages  between community colleges and the workforce investment system,  including one-stops.
To address these objectives, we conducted site visits at 20 community  colleges in 6 states—Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon,  and Washington (see app. II). We selected these states or a specific  community college in a state on the basis of expert recommendations or  research studies that highlighted places known to be active in workforce  development or to be engaged in innovative initiatives. We also considered  other criteria, including recommendations from Labor; receipt of a High  Growth, WIRED, or Community Based grant; receipt of a waiver from the  Eligible Training Provider List (ETPL)—which is a list of training vendors  approved by the state and local workforce boards; colocation of the  college and the one-stop; state unemployment rates; and geographical  diversity. During these site visits, we conducted semistructured interviews  with community college officials, state and local workforce officials, and  representatives of community college statewide associations. In some  cases, we also toured the one-stop facilities that partnered with our  selected schools. We also conducted short Web-based surveys of a  nationally representative sample of 311 workforce investment boards  (WIB)—the governing entity of the one-stop system within a local area— and 334 one-stop centers that were associated with these WIBs. The  survey response rates were 82 percent and 73 percent, respectively. All  estimates from the surveys have a margin of error of plus or minus 8  percent, unless otherwise noted in the report. (See app. I for more detailed  information about our scope and methodology.) We conducted  semistructured interviews with Labor and Education officials, as well as  representatives of employers’ associations, in addition to reviewing  relevant research and agency regulations and guidance. We conducted this  performance audit from April 2007 through May 2008 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: According to the American Association of Community Colleges, the nation  has about 1,200 community colleges—accredited institutions that  primarily offer the associate, or 2-year degree, as the highest degree.  Community colleges offer a wide array of educational programs that  encompass traditional academic coursework as well as career and  technical training. (See table 1.) In addition, career and technical  education programs are offered on both a for-credit basis and a noncredit  basis. An advantage of noncredit courses is that colleges can add or delete  them more quickly than for-credit courses, thereby allowing colleges to  respond to local training needs in a more responsive way.
Community colleges also serve a diverse student body. With generally low  tuition and unrestrictive admissions policies that emphasize open  enrollment, these colleges serve individuals ranging from those earning  their first educational credential to midcareer professionals seeking to  upgrade their skills or reenter the workforce. In general, community  college students are more likely to be from a minority group, older, and  socioeconomically disadvantaged than those at 4-year baccalaureate  institutions. They also are more likely to be enrolled in career and  technical education programs—about half of all community college  students are enrolled in these programs—and attending less than full time,  in part, because some of these students are already employed.
While community colleges serve individuals’ education and training needs,  they also work directly with employers to provide training to their  employees under a contract. Such training can be short term or it can lead  to a credential.
Workforce Investment Act  While individuals and companies access workforce education and training  programs that are available at community colleges on their own, the  federal government provides employment and training services that the  public and employers may also use. In 1998, WIA created a new,  comprehensive workforce investment system designed to change the way  that federally funded employment and training services were delivered.  The act’s goal was to unify a fragmented employment and training system  to better serve both job seekers and employers. WIA replaced the Job  Training Partnership Act with three new programs—Adult, Dislocated  Worker, and Youth—and required that these and other employment and  training programs be delivered through a single service system, known as  the one-stop system. Sixteen categories of programs funded through 4  separate agencies—deemed mandatory partners—must provide services  through this system. (See table 2.)
Under WIA, almost $27 billion in grants have been provided to states for  Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs since fiscal year 2000, as  shown in figure 1. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2007, however, WIA  funding declined by about 12 percent.
The amount of money that is allocated to the states and local workforce  areas depends on a specific formula that takes into account certain  factors, such as local unemployment and the number of low-income  individuals in the local population. In addition, WIA also allows  discretionary funds to be set aside at the federal and state levels. At the  state level, this funding can be used to help dislocated workers—workers  affected by layoffs and plant closings—through rapid response services  that provide information about financial and educational options and other  statewide activities.
WIA provides for state and local WIBs to govern the WIA one-stop system.  A state WIB is responsible for developing statewide policies and  overseeing various activities carried out by the one-stop system. Local  WIBs, in turn, are responsible for developing local workforce policies and  overseeing the operations of the one-stop centers in their designated  workforce area. A variety of state and local agencies, as well as  community colleges, can be selected by the local board to assume  responsibility for the administrative and financial operation of the one- stop center.
WIA allows flexibility in the way that the mandatory partners provide  services through the one-stop system, allowing colocation, whereby staff  from different programs are physically located at the same location;  electronic linkages; or referrals. While WIA requires these mandatory  partners to provide services through the one-stop system, it does not  provide additional funds to operate one-stop centers and support one-stop  partnerships. Mandatory partners are expected to share the costs of  developing and operating one-stop centers. In addition to mandatory  partners, local WIBs have the flexibility to include other programs in the  one-stop system, including community colleges, to better meet specific  state and local workforce development needs.
subsections: section_title: WIA and Community Colleges
paragraphs: Community colleges can play important roles in the federal workforce  programs under WIA. One potential role is to serve on the state and local  WIBs responsible for the WIA system. Governors and the chief local  officials select the representatives to their respective boards following the  membership criteria prescribed by WIA and its implementing regulations.  While WIA specifies that membership of the WIBs is to include  representatives of various types of entities, the regulations make clear that  community college representatives should be given special consideration  for membership. Another possible role for community colleges is to  become a one-stop operator. Community colleges may apply to a WIB to  become the operator of the one-stop center, overseeing its daily operation   and services. In addition, as a key provider of both education and career  and technical training programs in their communities, community colleges  can meet the education and training needs of one-stop clients by working  closely with their local one-stop centers to understand these needs and  meeting WIA requirements to become eligible training providers. For  example, community college staff at the one-stop can provide information  on the variety of classes available at the college, such as General  Equivalency Diploma (GED), English as a Second Language (ESL), or  adult basic education classes; conduct formal screenings or assessments  of clients to determine literacy levels; or determine eligibility for financial  aid options through the college. Individuals who are found eligible for  training under WIA receive vouchers—called Individual Training Accounts  (ITA)—to pay for training. ITAs can be used at the training provider of  their choice, which can include community colleges.
section_title: Department of Education and Community Colleges
paragraphs: While community colleges are primarily state-funded, they may also  receive federal funding from the Department of Education. Through funds  provided under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and the Carl  D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins Act),  states and community colleges can develop a variety of courses or  programs that assist students, including one-stop clients, with their  education and training programs.
One program funded through the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act  is the Adult Education Basic Grants to States program. Funds from this  program help community colleges provide adult education, English  literacy, GED preparation, and other basic skills. Approximately $564  million was provided in fiscal year 2007 to support 3,200 programs  delivering instruction through public schools, community colleges,  libraries, and community-based organizations. Through the Perkins Act,  Education provides grants to states to support academic, vocational, and  technical education in high schools, community colleges, and regional  technical centers. Approximately $1.1 billion in Perkins Act funding was  distributed in fiscal year 2007. The Perkins Act authorizes grants to  develop Tech Prep programs—a sequenced course of study in a technical  field that begins in high school, extends through 2 years of postsecondary  occupational education, and culminates in an associate degree or  certificate. Funded at $105 million in fiscal year 2007, the Tech Prep  program provides assistance to states to provide career and technical  education leading to an associate degree or a 2-year certificate and  strengthens pathways for students between secondary and postsecondary  schools.
In addition, Education funds student grant and loan programs under Title  IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, to individuals  pursuing higher education. One example of such programs is the Pell  Grant for low-income students. In fiscal year 2007, Education awarded  approximately $14 billion in Pell Grants to about 5 million recipients.  However, while one-stops and community colleges can help qualifying  low-income students apply for Pell Grants or other types of financial aid  funded by Education, students enrolled in noncredit education programs  are usually not eligible for federal financial aid.
section_title: Community Colleges Tailor Career and Technical Training Courses to Meet the Workforce Development Needs of Businesses, Workers, and Students
paragraphs: To meet businesses’ current and future workforce needs, the community  colleges that we visited keep their career and technical education  programs up to date through a variety of data collection and outreach  efforts. They also provide training directly to local employers through  contract or customized training programs; work with small businesses;  and offer programs to help specific groups of students and workers, such  as those receiving TANF.
subsections: section_title: Labor Market Analyses, Advisory Committees, and Skill Panels Are Some Ways That Community Colleges Stay Apprised of Workforce Training Needs
paragraphs: To help ensure that their programs are demand-driven, the community  colleges that we visited use a variety of methods to continually gather and  analyze labor market information and conditions. Community colleges in  all six states that we visited cited labor market analysis as an important  way to identify local needs and trends. In Iowa, for example, a state  agency has produced refined analyses of the education levels and training  needs of manufacturing workers in a particular local area and shares these  analyses with various workforce entities, including community colleges. In  Oregon and Washington, labor market data are provided by state analysts  who work in the field, where they can provide timely, customized  analyses—such as projected growth occupations over a specific time  period—in response to requests from community colleges and others.  However, in some instances, like Kirkwood Community College in Iowa,  schools develop their own labor market analysis. Officials from Wake  Tech Community College in North Carolina told us that they worked with  13 local economic development agencies to collect labor market data to  identify the region’s growth occupations for which the college could  potentially develop and provide training.
Many of the community colleges that we visited relied on feedback from  employers, which provided the feedback through committees internal or  external to the colleges to help them ensure that their programs reflect  current workforce trends and provide training that will meet specific job  competencies. Advisory committees, which are internal to each college,  comprise local business men and women who meet periodically to give  input to the colleges about their career and technical education programs.  Kirkwood Community College, for example, has 80 advisory committees  that encompass areas such as health, business, industrial technology, and  transportation and safety. According to a Kirkwood official, about 1,000  local business leaders participate in Kirkwood’s advisory committees.  Similar to advisory committees are external committees—involving   community colleges, business, and others—that focus on broad sectors,  rather than individual occupations, and that were also used in at least two  of the states that we visited. In Washington, for example, these committees  are known as “skill panels” and focus on the needs of a particular sector  by bringing together representatives of employers, labor, and training  providers in that sector to discuss their workforce needs. Since 2000, for  example, Washington has used skill panels to examine training needs in 20  different industrial clusters, including health care, manufacturing, food  processing, biotechnology, homeland security, information technology,  and construction. In Michigan, these collaborative groups are called  “regional skills alliances,” and they involve employers, community  colleges, one-stops, and other workforce entities.
Outreach approaches to community and business organizations or their  representatives were other methods used by the community colleges that  we visited to keep their programs aligned with business needs. These  approaches included serving on the boards of local employers’  associations, community organizations, and hospitals; seeking business  input for formal periodic program reviews; surveying local businesses;  using college staff as “account developers” to interact directly with local  businesses; and obtaining information through the local one-stop’s  business liaison.
In addition to gathering information about local labor market trends to  maintain their existing programs, community colleges also use this  information to create new programs and, in some cases, to discontinue  programs that no longer meet local needs. Several of the community  colleges that we visited had recently created new programs—for example,   polysomnography (sleep technician) and mechatronics (a field combining  skills from mechanics, hydraulics, and pneumatics)—based on  information gathered through a variety of sources about local business  needs. An official from Pitt Community College in North Carolina stated  that the college develops two to three new programs each year, following  a survey of selected industries in the area and identification of programs at  other community colleges. In other instances, Pitt responded to  insufficient local demand by discontinuing its heavy machinery program  and by folding a separate surveying program into its construction and  engineering programs.
section_title: Community Colleges Work Directly with Businesses through Contract Training and Small Business Centers
paragraphs: Through contract training, also known as customized training, community  colleges can respond quickly to an individual employer’s training needs by  developing either a specific training course or an entire training plan for  the company’s staff. In 2004, GAO conducted a survey of community  colleges and reported that, of the colleges responding to our survey, more  than three quarters offered contract training to more than 1 million  trainees, or a median of 982 trainees per school. The community colleges  that we visited varied widely in both the number of contract trainings they  provided and the number of businesses with which they worked: in the  2006-2007 year, the number of contract training courses ranged from 21 to  3,691, and the number of businesses the colleges served ranged from 5 to  155. The amount of money that these colleges received from contract  training was small—typically less than 5 percent of the college’s total  revenue—but these types of arrangements were offered to provide a full  complement of training services to businesses.
In some states, community colleges have taken steps to make it easier for  businesses to access contract training at community colleges. For  example, in Iowa, community colleges have established the One Source  initiative. The initiative provides a single point of entry into community  colleges’ contract training programs for employers with multiple locations  as well as for employers based out of state with multiple plants in Iowa. To  develop the initiative, the community colleges agreed that they would use  a common pricing structure, and that the community college or colleges  closest to the employer would deliver the training. New Jersey has a  similar approach in which the community colleges have formed a  statewide consortium that works with the state’s largest employer  association to make community college training available to all businesses  statewide, according to consortium officials. Now in its first year of  operation, the project has committed to provide 295 courses in areas such  as basic communication and computer skills for employers statewide. As  another example, to enhance its capabilities to provide training to  businesses, Lansing Community College in Michigan has joined the Global  Corporate College, in addition to other community colleges nationwide.  The Global Corporate College creates a system for individual community  colleges to leverage their resources by allowing members to share  intellectual property, faculty, and curriculum, thus enabling a college to  provide training to a particular company that, without these additional  resources, it might not be able to provide.
Contract training opportunities may also come to community colleges by  way of the WIA one-stop system. One-stops establish their own  relationships with employers to successfully connect job seekers with  available employment. To meet employer workforce needs, the one-stops  offer an array of services, including customized training for a specific  employer, that may be provided by one-stop staff or by other training  providers, such as community colleges.
In several of the states that we visited, officials told us that small  businesses play an important role as local employers, and community  colleges work with them in several ways. For example, several of the  colleges that we visited maintain small business centers within the  college. In some cases, such as at Linn-Benton Community College in  Oregon, the centers provided training to small businesses on various  topics, such as how to develop a financial plan or a business plan. Also,  the colleges provide contract training for the workers of small businesses,  similar to their other contract training activities. In addition, some  community colleges run small business incubators, by providing  temporary space for new businesses to operate. For example, North  Carolina’s Lenoir Community College has a small business incubator that  helped support an electrical contractor and a special-occasion bakery,  according to officials. Furthermore, North Iowa Area Community College,  which houses one of five entrepreneurial centers in the state that provides  support to small businesses, created a health insurance program to help  start-up businesses reduce their health insurance costs. Created through  public-private collaboration, the program provides funding for health  insurance to qualified entrepreneurs in the region for up to their first 3  years in business.
section_title: Community Colleges Design Career and Technical Training to Help Specific Groups of Students and Workers
paragraphs: Students may arrive at community colleges ill-equipped to enroll in  college-level career and technical classes for many reasons, such as low  literacy skills or language barriers. One way that the community colleges  that we visited enhance the employability of low-skilled adults in the labor  market and prepare them for higher-level classes is through providing  adult basic education classes and other types of support. Some of the  colleges that we visited provided adult basic education at the one-stop. In  North Carolina and Iowa, community colleges administer basic skills  education, such as adult literacy, ESL, and GED preparation, in contrast to  other states where multiple agencies may share responsibility for these  programs. In addition to basic education classes, some community  colleges may also provide “soft skills” training—the nontechnical skills  and traits that workers need to function in a job, such as oral  communication skills, work ethic, and teamwork. For example, Lenoir  Community College in North Carolina pioneered and still operates a soft- skills program that was subsequently adopted statewide. Prompted by  research that shows a significant portion of low-level adult readers have a  learning disability, Michigan’s Oakland Community College staff screens  one-stop clients for some types of learning disabilities and helps them to  develop coping strategies.
Another way that community colleges address both the needs of low- skilled adults and of businesses is by assessing and certifying adults’ basic  skills in three areas: applied math, reading, and information retrieval.  Adults who prove their proficiency in these skills receive a certificate,  known as the Career Readiness Certificate. According to North Carolina  officials, since the state launched its program in 2006, about 9,200  certificates have been issued, and employers’ responses have been  favorable. These officials believe that businesses are more confident about  the skill levels of those they hire and that they save money by hiring  individuals with the right skills “the first time,” and that community  colleges view the program as another service they can offer to businesses.  As of June 2007, 14 states had Career Readiness Certificate programs, and  another 17 states were developing such programs or had them available  locally.
Many of the community colleges that we visited cited a number of  examples of their work with career pathways, which is an approach that  improves low-skilled adults’ access to career and technical education  programs and is designed to improve their success in completing these  programs. A career pathway involves providing education, training, and  support services to workers to help them move to progressively higher- skilled positions in a specific industry or occupational sector. Oregon, for  example, has provided funding to implement its career pathway model  statewide. Growing from an initiative that started at Portland and Mount  Hood Community Colleges to help low-income students obtain credentials  for higher-wage jobs, Oregon’s model will provide for program staff at the  state level and for local coordinators at each of the state’s 17 community  colleges; implementation is expected to be complete by late 2008. In New  Jersey, Camden County College worked with the local one-stop and the  WIB to develop career ladders for transportation workers and food service  aides in two Camden hospitals, which are major local employers.  According to officials, the career ladders helped them meet a commitment  to hire local residents from Camden, a city with a reported high-school  dropout rate of 52 percent and with one of the highest poverty rates in the  country.
Building on the career-ladder model, Washington has combined basic  skills and career and technical training—in addition to supportive services  such as child care—in a program known as Integrated Basic Education  and Skills Training (I-BEST). By providing basic skills and occupation- specific educators in every class and incorporating career pathways,           I-BEST addresses individuals’ needs for both types of training. All seven of  the community and technical colleges that we visited in Washington had    I-BEST programs, and the federal Department of Health and Human  Services has identified I-BEST as a promising program for transitioning  TANF parents to work.
Community colleges also provide training or course work to high-school  students preparing to enter the workforce or for academic transfer. Some  states, such as Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, have dual- enrollment programs that allow high-school students to earn community  college credit. Furthermore, several community college officials, such as  those we met with in Washington, told us their colleges participate in  Education’s Tech Prep program, which provides funding to states to build  linkages between secondary and postsecondary schools. In addition,  community college officials in several states told us that their colleges  participate in other events to inform high-school students about their  career and technical education programs, such as career fairs and  occupational summer camps.
Community colleges are important training providers for one-stop clients  who receive training through WIA-funded ITAs. From our survey of one- stop centers, we estimated that 40 percent of the one-stop adult clients  who were enrolled in training by the one-stop between July 2006 and June  2007 selected a community college as their training provider. During the  2006-2007 year, the number of ITAs used at the community colleges that  we visited ranged from 34 to 381, and their value averaged between $366  and $4,566. The revenue that these colleges received from ITAs was small  compared with their total tuition and contract training revenue,  representing no more than 4 percent of the total revenue from those  sources.
section_title: Community Colleges Integrate with the One-Stop System in Many Ways, Including Operating and Colocating with One- Stops and Participating on WIBs
paragraphs: The community colleges that we visited integrate with their one-stop  centers through various activities. Examples of these activities include  operating the one-stop; participating on the local WIBs; or partnering with  the one-stop on workforce activities, such as strategic planning or data  sharing. However, the extent to which community colleges nationwide  conduct some of these activities varied.
subsections: section_title: Some Colleges Operate or Colocate Staff at One- Stops and Participate on WIBs
paragraphs: Officials at many of the colleges that we visited told us that one way they  integrate with the one-stop system is by becoming the operator for the  center. An entity that operates a one-stop typically coordinates the day- to-day operation of the center; some of the colleges that we visited were  also the fiscal agent that receives WIA funding to operate some of the  programs accessible through the one-stop. Community college officials  explained that the benefits of this arrangement were cost efficiencies, cost  savings, or access to other funding opportunities. The one-stop in Mason  City, Iowa, for example, is operated by the North Iowa Area Community  College, where the one-stop manager is an employee of the college. As a  result, the college pays half of the manager’s salary. In addition, the  college pays part of the salaries for the Economic Development and  Career Center directors, who are also part of the management team for the  one-stop. We found similar arrangements in several of the colleges that we  visited. Officials at Kirkwood Community College in Iowa, which operates  the Cedar Rapids one-stop, stated that their positions at both the college  and the one-stop offer a vantage point for developing funding proposals  through the college that benefit both entities. For example, Kirkwood  obtained funding to help students pay for continuing education classes for  which they could not receive financial aid. WIA clients taking classes at  Kirkwood are also eligible for this assistance, allowing them to use their  ITAs for other types of classes.
According to several community college and workforce officials at the  sites that we visited, colocation of community college staff at the one-stop  was another way that the college was integrated with the one-stop system.  Some officials with whom we spoke noted that colocation at the one-stop  helps to improve communication among the various agency programs,  improves the delivery of services to the client, or excises duplication.  College and workforce officials at Linn-Benton Community College in  Oregon commented that colocation is particularly important in rural areas  because these areas tend to be resource poor and have limited mass  transportation. These officials stated that locating workforce programs  and support services in one place helped clients obtain services from  agencies that typically would be spread throughout the community. A  Passaic County Community College official in New Jersey stated that prior  to the county’s colocation effort, community college officials did not know  about the services and tools available to clients that were provided by  agencies now colocated at the one-stop center. As a result of colocating,  the college is sending students to some of these organizations for services  that the college had previously provided, such as résumé writing. Based on  our survey, we estimated that about 11 percent of the one-stops are  operated solely or jointly by a community college, while 34 percent of the  one-stops have community college staff colocated at the one-stop center.
Officials at many of the sites that we visited reported that community  college officials sit on either the local or state WIBs, or both. Nationwide,  we estimated that 49 percent of the local WIBs have community college  presidents represented on their board, 26 percent have vice presidents, 32  percent have deans, and 39 percent have other community college staff.  While WIA requires that representatives from an education agency sit on  the local WIB, it does not stipulate that the representative be from a  community college, although the implementing regulations require that  they be given special consideration. In Iowa, however, state law requires  that community colleges sit on the local WIBs. An Iowa college official  explained that having the community colleges participate on the WIB  benefits the workforce system, because not only do the colleges provide  leadership and program capability, but they are at “ground zero,” where  service delivery occurs.
section_title: Community Colleges Are Integrated with One-Stops through Many Different Workforce Activities
paragraphs: In pursuing their workforce missions, our selected community colleges  collaborated on a broad array of other joint tasks and activities with their  one-stops and other workforce partners, in addition to operating and  colocating at the one stop or participating on the WIB. Examples of these  activities included building a new one-stop facility, producing data  analysis, conducting strategic planning, and cross-training one-stop staff  on their organization’s respective program services. Highlights of some of  these examples include the following:    Building a one-stop together: Linn-Benton, Portland, and Passaic County  Community Colleges worked with their one-stop and state and local  partners to design and build the one-stop facility. In Linn-Benton, many  partners were involved in getting the one-stop built, but the college owned  the land on which the one-stop is located and raised the construction  money by selling bonds. Today, the college owns the facility, and the  partners lease the space that they occupy.
Sharing data: All of the states that we visited develop labor market  information, which is shared with key workforce partners, including the  community colleges. In some cases, workforce partners may also request  special analyses or additional data that are more specific to their  communities. In the states that we visited, these data are developed and  provided by the state agency responsible for overseeing labor or  employment service programs. Although in Iowa, for example, the North  Iowa Area Community College pays for a refined analysis and shares it  with the one-stop and others.
Strategic planning: Some of the community colleges that we visited  conduct strategic planning efforts on workforce development with other  workforce system agencies or organizations. For example, Oakland  Community College in Michigan, the economic development agency, and  the one-stop with funding from a business sponsor develop and write an  annual report on the economic outlook for the county. A Michigan college  official pointed to Michigan’s regional skills alliances as vehicles for  continued strategic planning by workforce partners in a particular  business sector.
Cross-training of staff: Some of the community college officials that we  visited talked about the importance of ensuring that one-stop staff  understand the basics about each agency’s programs and services,  including the colleges. Some officials referred to this as the “no wrong  door” approach, meaning that a one-stop client should be able to approach  anyone at the center and get help or be directed to the right person. To  accomplish this, they conduct cross-training. For example, one-stop staff  at the center run by Portland Community College spent about 6 to 12  months training partner staff on everyone else’s programs before the  facility officially opened. Also,  Linn-Benton Community College in Oregon  wrote a resource directory outlining all of the programs offered by the  various agencies and conducted team-building exercises for the staff using  the resource directory.
section_title: State Funding and Leadership Help Community Colleges’ Workforce Efforts, While WIA Performance System Measures and WIA Funding Issues Present Challenges
paragraphs: State funding and leadership are some of the factors that community  colleges and other workforce officials identified as supporting their  workforce efforts and integration with one-stops. However, these officials  also pointed to challenges with the WIA performance system measures  and issues related to WIA funding.
subsections: section_title: State Funding and Leadership Are Key to Supporting Workforce Development
paragraphs: Some community college and workforce officials with whom we spoke  cited additional training funds provided by their states as an important  factor to supporting community colleges’ workforce development efforts.  One example of this support is New Jersey’s Workforce Development  Program, which makes grants available on a competitive basis to  businesses or business consortia partnering with an educational  institution, such as a community college. The grants fund incumbent  worker training and are financed through a dedicated state payroll tax for  workforce development, paid by both employers and workers. The  employers receiving the grants provide a 50 percent match. In Iowa,  community colleges are permitted to sell bonds to raise funds for  incumbent worker training in new or expanding companies. Michigan is  also considering Iowa’s approach as a way to help finance workforce  training. In Oregon, the governor created the Employment Workforce  Training Fund, which is paid for through WIA discretionary monies, to  help communities pay for incumbent worker training.
Six of the 20 community colleges that we visited were participating in a  WIRED, High Growth, or Community Based grant. Some officials noted  that the additional federal funding provided through these grants was  important in launching projects or sustaining them. In total, more than $3  million dollars in the 2006-2007 year were awarded to the schools through  one or more of these Department of Labor grants.
Leadership by individuals at all levels of the workforce system—state  officials, WIBs, one-stops, and colleges—was cited by several workforce  and community college officials at the sites that we visited as a factor  facilitating integration of colleges into the workforce system. In New  Jersey and Michigan, some officials commented that leadership came from  their governors in that they placed a priority on workforce and economic  development in their respective states and viewed community colleges as  key partners in workforce training. New Jersey’s governor accomplished  this, in part, by specifically tasking the Commissioners of Higher  Education and the Department of Labor and Workforce Development with  bringing together community colleges and the workforce system in  implementing his plan for economic growth in the state. Under Michigan’s  governor, the state developed a new initiative called “No Worker Left  Behind” in which the state provides 2 years of free tuition at a community  college for workers who are training for certificates or degrees in high- demand occupations. Some Oregon state officials pointed to the  governor’s Workforce Policy Cabinet as an important mechanism for  integration. Through the cabinet, established in 1991, the heads of  agencies representing workforce programs or programs that are critical to  workforce development meet regularly to discuss issues and make  decisions.
section_title: WIA Performance System Measures and Funding Issues Were Cited as Challenges
paragraphs: Community college and other workforce officials at our selected sites  outlined some challenges in undertaking their various workforce  initiatives and joint efforts. These challenges included barriers arising  from meeting WIA performance system measures, the volatility created by  the WIA funding formula, and the decline in WIA funding overall.
Some officials told us that helping certain clients connect to the workforce  through the one-stop system is difficult due, in part, to disincentives  created by the WIA performance system measures. For example, WIA  holds state and local workforce areas accountable for meeting  performance levels in their Adult, Dislocated Workers, and Youth  programs on measures such as job placement, retention, and earnings.  States may receive incentive funds or suffer financial sanctions, depending  on whether they meet these levels. But youth or TANF clients, for  example, typically have more difficulty in obtaining jobs, and generally  retain them for shorter periods of time than other types of clients, partly as  a result of transportation, child care, or substance abuse issues. These job  seekers may also require more-intensive services and case management  from the one-stop staff before they are ready to search for a job. In the  case of older workers, they generally are looking for part-time work and  accept jobs at wages that are lower than what they were previously  making. As a result, WIA performance measures can create incentives for  one-stops to offer services first to clients who are easier to serve and more  likely to be successful in obtaining and retaining a job.
GAO reported in 2004 and 2007 that many state and local officials did not  think the negotiation process with Labor adequately considered factors  that could affect the performance level of the state. We recommended that  Labor develop a systematic model for all states to use that could take into  account the type of population served or the economic conditions of the  state. As we outlined in those reports, a model of this type could help the  process set more uniform goals and provide a tool to states and local areas  that do not have the resources to develop their own models. To date,  Labor has not implemented this recommendation. Labor officials reported  to us that they allow states to use their own model in negotiating their  performance levels, which would allow states to take into account  economic conditions, populations served, and other factors relevant to  meeting the levels. In addition, these officials stated that Labor works to  ensure consistency in the negotiation process for establishing state  performance levels between the department’s regional offices, which  conduct the negotiations, and the states, through guidance to the regions  as well as discussions between the Assistant Secretary and Labor’s  regional office administrators.
Some community college and workforce officials also noted that  Education and Labor have not aligned their performance measures across  their respective workforce programs. One workforce official explained  that this forces local-level staff to spend time trying to align and bridge  different reporting requirements and policies, instead of working with  clients. The Office of Management and Budget has recommended that  common measures be adopted by related workforce programs across  agencies. Labor has adopted and implemented these common measures  within some of their workforce programs. While Education has adopted  these measures, Education officials reported to us that they have not fully  implemented all aspects of the measures due to differences between  Education and Labor’s workforce programs concerning program  definitions, collection timelines, and populations to be measured.  However, Education is continuing to work on resolving these issues.
Other WIA funding issues were also noted by some community college and  workforce officials as barriers to workforce efforts and integration  between colleges and one-stops. One issue they cited was the fluctuations  in funding from year to year caused by some of the WIA allocation  formulas. In some of the sites that we visited, officials stated that WIA  funding was reduced by 40 percent from the previous year. GAO  addressed this issue in two reports in 2003 and outlined options for   Congress to consider when reauthorizing WIA that could help reduce the  volatility in some of the WIA allocation formulas. However, Congress has  not yet passed legislation that would reauthorize WIA.  Other officials  stated that the lack of infrastructure funding for WIA has created problems  with integration, particularly when organizations try to obtain or renovate  a building to provide adequate space so that partners can colocate. Some  college and workforce officials we interviewed cited a decline in WIA  funding overall as a problem because it creates difficulties in planning and  serving clients. Oregon state officials told us that they closed 8  employment service offices and laid off 80 staff because of declining  funding, causing concerns about client access to services, particularly in  rural parts of the state.
section_title: Labor and Education Have Focused on Community Colleges’ Workforce Development Efforts through Targeted Grant Programs and a Strategic Partnerships Initiative, but Their Impact Is Not Fully Known
paragraphs: In addition to other activities, Education and Labor have undertaken and  supported two key initiatives that focus on building linkages between  community colleges and the workforce system: the WIRED, Community  Based, and High Growth grants and the Strategic Partnerships for a  Competitive Workforce Initiative, a joint initiative with Education. It is  unclear whether these initiatives will be successful in building such  linkages or encouraging more community colleges to focus on workforce  development, due to the agencies’ inability to measure the full impact of  these collaborative efforts.
Since 2001, Labor has awarded about $900 million through WIRED,  Community Based, and High Growth grants to promote a more market- driven workforce system by increasing collaboration among businesses,  community colleges, and other key workforce development partners.  Unlike the WIRED and High Growth grants—which go to governors or a  broad range of public and private organizations, respectively—the   Community Based awards are primarily targeted to community colleges to  build their capacity to provide skilled workers for high-growth industries  and occupations. In 2006, Labor awarded $125 million in Community  Based grants to community colleges. However, in our May 2008 report  about Labor’s grant process, we stated that Labor will be challenged to  assess the impact of these grants because it did not plan well from the  outset to identify performance goals and collect data comparable to those  collected from other programs. As a result, we recommended that the  department take the appropriate steps to ensure that it can fully evaluate  the grants’ impact.
In addition, Labor and Education jointly funded and organized a $1.5  million initiative—the Strategic Partnerships for a Competitive  Workforce—to help build linkages between community colleges and the  workforce system. The initiative involved 32 teams of local workforce  organizations selected from Community Based grantees and focused on  building career pathways. In doing so, teams were tasked with developing  a strategic plan for implementing an education and training approach that  would foster partnerships and coordination within the community  between kindergarten and 12th grade, vocational schools, colleges and  universities, community-based organizations, and employers. Under the  Strategic Partnerships initiative, Labor and Education held four training  institutes that covered topics related to building career pathways in  industries, including health care and advanced manufacturing. In planning  for the institutes, officials from Labor and Education met regularly to carry  out tasks and responsibilities as well as to work out numerous differences  between the agencies in terminology and approaches to the career  pathway model. Based on the informal feedback received from training  institute participants, Labor and Education have viewed the Strategic  Partnerships initiative as a success, but the departments are not planning  any other joint initiatives in the future due to budget constraints and other  pressing priorities. Labor and Education are planning to issue a report in  2008 highlighting the lessons learned from the initiative.
Since September 2007, the two departments have also been working on an  interagency agreement to conduct a multivariate analysis of the National  Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) data. NAAL is a nationally  representative assessment of English literacy among American adults aged  16 years and older and is conducted by the National Center for Education  Statistics. According to officials, these data will help agency officials  better understand the correlations among the areas of literacy,  postsecondary education, and employment in specific industries.
Labor and Education have also conducted other activities independent of  their joint efforts, such as conferences, online meetings, Web sites, and  other institutes that focus on various workforce development issues, some  of which involve community colleges and the workforce development  system. For example, Education has an initiative—the College and Career  Transitions Initiative—that creates model career pathways and  implements strategies to ease student transitions from secondary to  postsecondary education into several occupation areas, including  information technology; science, engineering, and mathematics; health  science; education and training; and law, public safety, and security.  Education has also created a new position—Deputy Assistant Secretary  for Community Colleges—to heighten the visibility of community colleges  and issues specific to them, such as workforce development, within the  department. Labor has established a Web site— http://www.workforce3one.org—that highlights information and promising  practices on workforce issues, including the role that community colleges  play. The department also holds an annual workforce conference that has  included sessions on community colleges and the workforce system.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: At a time when the nation is facing several workforce trends  simultaneously, the nation’s workforce system may be tested. The nation  may soon face a labor shortage as the baby boomer generation retires, and  economic dislocations are predicted to continue due to global  competition, thus increasing the need to retrain and reemploy affected  workers quickly. As these trends converge, it will be increasingly  important that the nation have a nimble, responsive workforce system and  good information about that workforce to maintain a competitive  economy in a global marketplace. In addition, when Congress reauthorizes  WIA, it will be important to consider issues that we have raised in the past,  such as the yearly funding fluctuations that result from certain of the act’s  allocation formulas.
Through their workforce education programs, community colleges will  continue to be an important part of a responsive workforce system—given   their mission, affordability, and accessibility—as will federal policies and  programs that support lifelong learning. The selected colleges we visited  for this report are pursuing their workforce missions by working with the  private sector in their communities and regions to serve diverse groups of  individuals and businesses, and by participating in activities that forge  connections to high-school students to prepare them for the workforce.  Under WIA, community colleges are major providers of training and  participate in other federal workforce programs. As the need grows for  citizens to gain or upgrade their skills, an important federal policy issue is  how to encourage more community colleges to follow the lead of those  that are taking actions in this area.
Labor and Education have taken some important first steps that address  aspects of the community colleges’ role in the workforce system through  Labor’s WIRED, High Growth, and Community Based grants and the  jointly sponsored Strategic Partnerships initiative. Continued efforts by  Labor and Education to build on past successes in aligning their respective  workforce programs will help ensure that the nation will benefit from the  full potential of community colleges that are already actively engaged in  workforce development and the one-stop system and will encourage more  community colleges to follow their examples.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Labor and Education for review and  comment. Labor provided a written response to the report (see app. III);  Education did not. Both agencies provided technical comments, which we  incorporated in the report where appropriate.
Labor generally agreed with our findings and conclusions but expressed  concern with comments from community college and state workforce  officials who we interviewed about disincentives resulting from the WIA  performance measures.  Labor asserts that it is not the measures, per se,  that may cause disincentives to arise in serving certain client groups, but  the states’ performance levels (i.e., percentage of clients that must meet  these measures). The department contends that it provides for a thorough  negotiation process with the states in setting these levels, which allows  states to account for these groups. We believe that the performance  measures for clients and the performance levels for states are interrelated,  in that the percentage of clients meeting the individual measures  determines the extent to which a state meets its performance levels. In  light of Labor’s comments, we changed the title of the relevant report  section to convey that the disincentive relates to both individual measures  and state performance-level measures.
Labor also stated its position that the department’s regulations and  guidance provide enough latitude to states for addressing extenuating  circumstances, such as hard-to-serve populations or adverse economic  conditions, in determining their performance levels. We continue to  believe that the disincentive issue, as evidenced by the information  discussed in this and prior GAO reports, continues to surface, and that our  previous recommendation that Labor develop a systematic model that  would account for a variety of factors for all states to use could be a  mechanism to help remedy the problem.
We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional committees,  the Secretaries of Labor and Education, and other interested parties. We  will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contacts for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. A GAO contact and other staff acknowledgments are listed  in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To describe policies in place that address the involvement of community  colleges in the one-stop system, we selected a stratified random  probability sample of comprehensive one-stops and their corresponding  Workforce Investment Board (WIB), which oversees a selected one-stop,  for a sample survey. We received a list of comprehensive one-stop centers  in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands from the  Department of Labor’s locator database. To determine the reliability of  these data, we compared the list from Labor to an April 2007 GAO survey  of states. We identified discrepancies in the number of comprehensive  one-stop centers reported in several states. We completed follow-up with  27 states and 2 territories to ensure that we could select a representative  sample of comprehensive one-stop centers. After completion of follow-up  with the 27 states and 2 territories, we selected a sample from this  corrected universe of one-stops. We determined that these data were  sufficiently reliable to develop the universe of one-stops. There were 1,684  one-stops in our universe.
To minimize the burden on WIB respondents, we decided to stratify the  universe based on the number of comprehensive one-stops we identified  as being governed by a particular WIB. Thus, comprehensive one-stops in  a relatively small WIB (i.e., a WIB with 4 or fewer comprehensive one- stops) had a higher sampling rate than comprehensive one-stops in a  larger WIB. The universe was divided into 4 strata, those with 3 or fewer, 4  to 7, 8 to 15, and 16 or more one-stops per WIB. The universe of  comprehensive one-stops was stratified only to ease the burden on WIB  respondents—the stratification was not used to compare survey results.  We surveyed 334 one-stop centers and 311 of their associated WIBs. The  response rates for the one-stop and WIB surveys were 73 percent and 82  percent, respectively.
Each one-stop had a nonzero probability of being selected, and that  probability could be computed for any case. Each selected case was  subsequently weighted in the analysis to account statistically for all of the  one-stops in the universe, including those that were not selected. In  addition to the survey about the one-stop that was sent to the WIB, the  WIB also received a survey directly related to its activities. Since the WIB  questionnaire was not specifically related to the one-stops in the survey  (the questions were asked of the WIB in general), the two surveys were  analyzed separately. Because each WIB had a different probability of  selection (proportional to the number of one-stops), the statistical weights  were calculated for a replacement design of a stratified sample with an  unequal probability of selection.
For both components of the survey, the one-stop and the WIB, we  followed a probability procedure that was based on random selections;  therefore, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we  might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided different  estimates, we expressed our confidence in the precision of our particular  sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 9  percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the actual  population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a  result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in  this report will include the true values in the study population. All  percentage estimates in this report have a margin of error of plus or minus  8 percent or less, unless otherwise noted.
In addition to margins of error due to sampling, the practical difficulties of  conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as  nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties concerning interpreting  questions, sources of information that are available to respondents, or data  entry and analysis can introduce unwanted variability into the survey  results. We took steps in the development of both questionnaires used in  this study, in the data collection, and in the data analysis to minimize  nonsampling errors. For example, social science survey specialists  designed both questionnaires in collaboration with GAO staff with subject  matter expertise. Then, the draft questionnaires were pretested at various  stages in their development with four WIB officials to ensure that  questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to comprehend. The  questionnaires were also reviewed by an additional GAO survey specialist.  Data analysis was conducted by a GAO data analyst working directly with  the GAO staff with subject matter expertise. When the data were analyzed,  a second independent data analyst checked all computer programs for  accuracy. Since these were Web-based surveys, respondents entered their  answers directly into the electronic questionnaires. Doing so eliminated  the need to have the data keyed into databases, thus removing an  additional source of errors. To ensure adequate response rates, we sent  multiple e-mails to respondents who did not complete their questionnaires  within a reasonable time frame. In addition to sending multiple e-mails to  survey nonrespondents, GAO contractors contacted the remaining  nonrespondents by telephone to encourage them to respond.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2007 through May 2008 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: Community Colleges Selected for Site Visits
paragraphs: We conducted semistructured interviews with officials from 20 community  colleges in 6 states to obtain a detailed understanding of their career and  technical education activities, their relationships with their local one-stops  and local WIBs, and their views on how particular state and federal  policies enhanced or impeded their workforce development efforts. (See  table 3.) In addition to these community colleges, we met with officials of  Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland during an early exploratory  interview in May 2007. We conducted our site visits between June and  November 2007.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Kathy Larin, Assistant Director, and Janet Mascia, Analyst-in-Charge,  managed the assignment. Christopher Morehouse, Kelly Bradley, and  Linda Stokes made significant contributions in all aspects of the  assignment and in writing the report. Jean McSween, Stuart Kaufman, and  Lisa Mirel assisted in the survey design, implementation, and data analysis.  Susannah Compton provided writing assistance, and Jessica Botsford  provided legal support.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Employment and Training Program Grants: Evaluating Impact and  Enhancing Monitoring Would Improve Accountability. GAO-08-486.  Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2008.
Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve  the Workforce System. GAO-07-1051T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007.
Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in  Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help  Gauge Employer Involvement. GAO-07-167. Washington, D.C.:   December 22, 2006.
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.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative  Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting  Requirements. GAO-05-539. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied  with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address  Employers’ Needs. GAO-05-259. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2005.
Public Community Colleges and Technical Schools: Most Schools Use  Both Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development.   GAO-05-4. Washington, D.C.: October 18, 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.
Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on  State Allocations. GAO-03-1043. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to  Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and  Information Sharing is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18,  2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for  Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO-03-636. Washington, D.C.:  April 25, 2003.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and  Performance Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington,  D.C.: April 18, 2003.
Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business  Needs, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for  Some Workers. GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003.