Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop System Infrastructure Continues to Evolve, but Labor Should Take Action to Require That All Employment Service Offices Are Part of the System
Published: 2007-09-04T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), requiring states and localities to bring together employment and training programs into a single workforce system, the one-stop system. States have flexibility in how they provide these services--colocated within the one-stop--through electronic linkage or referral. WIA did not provide funds to pay for the infrastructure costs, but programs must share the costs of operating one-stop centers. As Congress considers reauthorization of WIA, GAO assessed (1) the current composition of states' one-stop systems and how this has changed, (2) what funds are primarily used to support states' one-stop system infrastructure and how this has changed, and (3) the extent to which states are monitoring customer satisfaction. Our work was primarily based on a 50-state survey of state workforce officials, updating work we previously did in 2000 and 2001.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Over the last 4 years, 19 states reported a decrease in one-stop centers, often citing a decrease in funds as one of the primary reasons. At the same time, 10 states reported an increase, citing an increase in demand for services and an increase in on-site programs. In our 2007 survey, states reported that 13 of the 16 mandatory programs were available at the majority of one-stop centers. States reported they were providing Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service on-site at one-stop centers, but some states also provided services through stand-alone Employment Service offices--facilities that focus primarily on job search and placement assistance. While states are required to maintain these offices within the one-stop delivery system, 9 states reported operating at least one stand-alone office unaffiliated with the one-stop system. While Labor has taken steps to encourage states to provide all employment services through the one-stop system, states have made only modest progress in bringing these systems together. WIA and Employment Service were the largest funding sources for states to support the infrastructure--the nonpersonnel costs--of their one-stop centers. Of the two programs, states reported that a greater percentage of Employment Service funds than WIA funds were used for infrastructure costs. States also reported less reliance on other programs to support the infrastructure costs than in the past. Nearly all states reported that they submitted customer satisfaction data to Labor for program year 2005. In addition, 12 states reported that they have established additional customer satisfaction measures beyond those required by Labor.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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 employment and training programs  states and localities to bring together employment and training programs  into a single comprehensive workforce system, called the one-stop system.  into a single comprehensive workforce system, called the one-stop system.  Sixteen federally funded workforce development programs are required to  Sixteen federally funded workforce development programs are required to  provide their services through the one-stop system, but states have  provide their services through the one-stop system, but states have  considerable flexibility in how they deliver services. Programs, for  considerable flexibility in how they deliver services. Programs, for  example, may be colocated within the one-stop center, electronically  example, may be colocated within the one-stop center, electronically  linked, or linked through referrals. In fiscal year 2006, Congress  linked, or linked through referrals. In fiscal year 2006, Congress  appropriated roughly $15 billion for the 16 mandatory programs, including  appropriated roughly $15 billion for the 16 mandatory programs, including  about $3 billion for WIA. WIA legislation did not provide separate funds to  about $3 billion for WIA. WIA legislation did not provide separate funds to  pay for the infrastructure costs, leaving it up to the mandatory partners to  pay for the infrastructure costs, leaving it up to the mandatory partners to  make their own cost-sharing arrangements. In 2000, we conducted a 50- make their own cost-sharing arrangements. In 2000, we conducted a 50- state survey that examined the different arrangements one-stop centers  state survey that examined the different arrangements one-stop centers  were using to provide both mandated and optional programs and the  were using to provide both mandated and optional programs and the  funding sources used by one-stop centers to pay their infrastructure costs.  funding sources used by one-stop centers to pay their infrastructure costs.  We last updated this work in 2001. However, little is known about the  We last updated this work in 2001. However, little is known about the  current structure of one-stop centers—the numbers of centers or the  current structure of one-stop centers—the numbers of centers or the  services provided at them—or the infrastructure costs for the one-stop  services provided at them—or the infrastructure costs for the one-stop  centers currently operating across the 50 states and how these have  centers currently operating across the 50 states and how these have  changed over time.  changed over time.
As Congress considers reauthorization of WIA, you asked us to gather  As Congress considers reauthorization of WIA, you asked us to gather  information about how the one-stop delivery system has evolved since  information about how the one-stop delivery system has evolved since  WIA was enacted. Specifically, we assessed (1) the current composition of  WIA was enacted. Specifically, we assessed (1) the current composition of  states’ one-stop systems and how this has changed over time, (2) what  states’ one-stop systems and how this has changed over time, (2) what  funds are primarily used to support states’ one-stop system infrastructure  funds are primarily used to support states’ one-stop system infrastructure  and how this has changed over time, and (3) the extent to which states are  and how this has changed over time, and (3) the extent to which states are  monitoring customer satisfaction with service delivery at one-stop centers.  monitoring customer satisfaction with service delivery at one-stop centers.
To gather information on how state and local one-stop delivery systems  To gather information on how state and local one-stop delivery systems  established under WIA deliver employment and training services to job  established under WIA deliver employment and training services to job  seekers and employers, we conducted a survey of state workforce officials  seekers and employers, we conducted a survey of state workforce officials  in 50 states. The survey included questions on states’ one-stop delivery  systems related to the numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers and  satellite or affiliated sites, program services, and sources of funds to pay  infrastructure costs for comprehensive one-stop centers. We also obtained  cost data for program year 2005. The questionnaire was e-mailed to state  officials in April, 2007, and we received surveys from all 50 states,  although some states did not answer every question. We did not survey the  District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. territories. Our survey  asked states to provide information about their one-stop systems as of  April 1, 2007. In order to analyze trends in the one-stop delivery system, we  compared the 2007 survey data with data from 2000 and 2001. To assess  the reliability of certain data obtained from the survey, we independently  researched the information from other publicly available sources. In  addition to our survey, we conducted a literature review to identify  relevant findings from other studies—including those sponsored by the  Department of Labor (Labor)—that examined one-stop delivery systems.  (App. I contains a more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.  App. II contains  a copy of the questionnaire.) We conducted our work  between April 2007 and August 2007 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Workforce Investment Act created a new, comprehensive workforce  investment system designed to change the way employment and training  services are delivered. When WIA was enacted, in 1998, it replaced the Job  Training Partnership Act (JTPA) with three new programs—Adult,  Dislocated Worker, and Youth—that allow for a broader range of services  to the general public, no longer using income to determine eligibility for all  program services. In addition to establishing these three new programs,  WIA requires that services for these programs, along with those of a  number of other employment and training programs, including the  Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service, be provided through a single  service delivery system—the one-stop system. States were required to  implement these changes by July 1, 2000. Sixteen categories of programs,  receiving an estimated $15 billion from four separate federal agencies,  must provide services through the system. (See table 1.)
Each state must have one or more designated local workforce investment  areas, and as of April 2007, the 50 states reported having 563 local  workforce investment areas. Nine states reported having the entire state  as its workforce investment area, and California reported having the most  local workforce investment areas (50). (See app. III for additional data  about the numbers of local workforce investment areas and  comprehensive one-stop centers, and related information.) Each local area  must have at least one comprehensive one-stop center where core services  for all mandatory programs are accessible. WIA allows flexibility in the  way these mandatory program partners provide services through the one- stop system, allowing colocation, electronic linkages, or referrals. While  WIA requires these mandatory partners to participate, it does not provide  additional funds to operate one-stop systems and support one-stop  partnerships. As a result, mandatory partners are expected to share the  costs of developing and operating one-stop centers. In addition to  mandatory partners, one-stop centers have the flexibility to include other  optional partners, such as TANF or the Food Stamp Employment and  Training program, in the one-stop system to better meet specific state and  local workforce development needs. Services may also be offered at  satellite or affiliated sites—designated locations that provide access to at  least one employment and training program. About $3.3 billion was  appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for the three WIA programs—Adult,  Dislocated Worker, and Youth.
section_title: The Numbers of Comprehensive One- Stop Centers and Satellite Sites Have Decreased since 2001; Most Mandatory Programs Were Available at One-Stop Centers in 2007
paragraphs: From 2001 to 2007, the total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in  the 50 states declined by 7 percent, and during the same period, the total  number of satellite or affiliated sites decreased by 13 percent. Since 2003,  19 states reported a decline in the number of comprehensive one-stop  centers and frequently identified a decrease in funds as one of the primary  reasons. In our 2007 survey, states reported that 13 of the 16 mandatory  programs required under WIA were available at the majority of  comprehensive one-stop centers. States reported that three key mandatory  programs—WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and the Employment  Service—continued to be available on-site at the majority of the one-stop  centers. More states also reported that some programs were available at  one-stop centers electronically or through referral than in 2001. While  states reported they were providing Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment  Service on-site at one-stop centers, some states also provided services  through stand-alone Employment Service facilities—offices that focus  primarily on assistance funded by the Employment Service. Eighteen  states reported operating one or more stand-alone Employment Service  offices; 9 of these states reported having at least one unaffiliated stand- alone office outside the one-stop delivery system. States reported that the  majority of the physical locations—the buildings that contain the one-stop  delivery system—were leased or rented in 2007. Only 10 percent were  owned by the state.
subsections: section_title: The Number of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers Has Declined 7 Percent since Program Year 2001
paragraphs: The total number of comprehensive one-stop centers has declined since  we last reviewed it in 2001. Over the 6-year period, the number of one-stop  centers across the 50 states has declined from 1,756 in 2001 to 1,637 in  2007. (See fig. 2.) Over the last 4 years, 19 states reported a decrease in  one-stop centers, frequently identifying a decrease in funds as one of the  primary reasons. In contrast, 10 states reported an increase during this  period, citing, among other reasons, an increase in demand for services  and an increase in the number of on-site partners.
Changes in the number of comprehensive one-stop centers in the last 4  years were generally relatively small. Thirty-five states reported little (less  than 10 percent) or no change in the total number of comprehensive one- stop centers. However, some states reported large changes, including 5  states that reported more than a 25 percent reduction in the number of  one-stop centers. Connecticut, for example, reported more than a 35  percent decrease in one-stop centers, from 11 to 7 centers, a change that  state officials attributed to a reduction in funding that caused one-stop  centers to be closed or redesignated as satellite sites. Conversely, 4 states  reported increases of 25 percent or more in the number of one-stop  centers. For example, Montana reported a seven-fold increase, from 2 to  14 one-stop centers, as part of a statewide restructuring of its one-stop  delivery system that involved converting former satellite and affiliated  sites into comprehensive one-stop centers. (See app. IV for detailed  information about the numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers and  satellite or affiliated sites and changes over time.)
section_title: The Number of Satellite or Affiliated Sites Has Decreased since 2001 but Has Risen Slightly since 2003
paragraphs: From 2001 to 2007, the total number of satellite or affiliated sites across  the 50 states declined by 13 percent, from 2,032 to 1,764. However, the  number of satellite sites has increased slightly in the last 4 years. Between  2003 and 2007, 17 states reported increasing the number of satellite sites.  Illinois, for example, reported a 45 percent increase in satellite sites (from  53 to 77) to meet the demand in underserved areas and to respond to  specific large dislocation events. In contrast, 17 states reported a decline  in the number of satellite sites. For example, in Florida, the number  decreased by 56 percent—from 39 to 17—because of ongoing funding cuts.  In other states, however, the decrease in the number of satellite sites was  often the result of a change in the states’ official designation of satellite  and affiliated sites. Fifteen states reported no change in the number of  satellite sites since 2003. (See app. IV for detailed information about the  numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers and satellite or affiliated sites  and changes over time.)
The use of satellite sites in rural areas has changed in recent years,  according to a 2005 study sponsored by Labor. In the five localities that  the researchers reviewed, the rural local workforce investment areas were  focusing more on developing comprehensive one-stop centers than on  creating multiple, dispersed satellite or affiliated sites. Researchers  attributed the move away from satellite sites to comprehensive centers to  a number of reasons, including the increase in the availability of electronic  access to core services, the greater ease of supervising colocated staff, the  increased visibility of comprehensive centers, and the fact that affiliated  sites often had limited hours that made them less attractive.
section_title: More States Reported That Mandatory Program Services Were Available at One-Stop Centers
paragraphs: In 2007, states reported that 13 of the 16 mandatory programs required  under WIA were available at the majority of comprehensive one-stop  centers. States reported that three key mandatory programs—WIA Adult,  WIA Dislocated Worker, and the Employment Service—continued to be  available on-site at the majority of the one-stop centers. More states also  reported that some programs’ services were available at one-stop centers  electronically or through referral. These programs included Job Corps,  Senior Community Service Employment, and Adult Education and  Literacy. (See table 2.) In addition, states reported that services for an  optional program, TANF, were available in one-stop centers in more states  in 2007 than in 2001. Sixteen states reported that TANF was available in  the majority of one-stop centers in 2001, whereas 30 states reported that  TANF was available at the typical comprehensive one-stop center in 2007.  (See app. V for additional information about program services provided at  a typical one-stop center across all 50 states.)
While states reported they were providing Wagner-Peyser-funded  Employment Service on-site at one-stop centers, some states also provided  services through stand-alone Employment Service facilities—offices that  focus primarily on job search and placement assistance. Overall, 18 states  reported in our 2007 survey that they had at least one stand-alone  Employment Service office. Nine states reported that at least one of these  stand-alone offices were unaffiliated and not part of the one-stop delivery  system. Six of these states reported that they operated all of their stand- alone Employment Service offices as unaffiliated sites completely outside  the one-stop system. This represents a modest decrease from the figures  Labor reported in 2006, when 19 states overall were identified as having at  least one stand-alone Employment Service office, 13 of which were  operating parallel systems disconnected from the local one-stop centers to  a substantial degree. (See fig. 3.) (See app. VI for additional information  about stand-alone employment service offices.)
The Wagner-Peyser Act requires that all labor exchange services be  provided as part of the one-stop delivery system. Labor’s implementing  regulations provide that Employment Service offices may not exist outside  the one-stop delivery system, but allow stand-alone Employment Service  offices to operate as affiliated sites or as electronically or technologically  linked access points. Labor has expressed concern that these stand-alone  Employment Service offices cause confusion for individuals and  employers and promote duplication of effort. While Labor has the option  to withhold funding, it has not done so, but has taken other steps to  encourage states to provide all employment services through the one-stop  system. These actions include providing policy guidance, monitoring the  status of states’ workforce integration, conducting forums, and providing  technical assistance to states in support of integration of stand-alone  offices into one-stop centers. In addition, Labor reports that it is requiring  states to include information on their efforts to improve one-stop  coordination and integration in their WIA state plan updates this year.   And Labor has proposed legislative initiatives and regulatory changes— that currently await reauthorization—designed to better integrate services  at the one-stop. Despite the range of Labor’s efforts, states have made only  modest progress in bringing these systems together.
section_title: The Majority of Physical Locations in the One-Stop Delivery System Were Leased or Rented
paragraphs: Since the establishment of the one-stop system, some have expressed  concern that state-owned buildings may be reducing states’ flexibility to  optimize their physical space. We found, however, that most states  reported that they owned relatively few buildings, leasing or renting about  two-thirds of the physical locations for their one-stop systems. Overall,  states reported that the one-stop delivery system comprised nearly 3,400  physical locations. Of the overall total, states reported that about 65  percent of the buildings were leased or rented, and only 10 percent were  state-owned. (See fig. 4.)
Most states (37) reported that they owned less than 20 percent of the  buildings used to operate the one-stop system, and 10 of these states  reported that they did not own any of the physical locations. In contrast, 4  states reported that over half of the buildings used to operate the one-stop  delivery systems were state-owned. Two states also reported that the  majority of the buildings were neither leased nor owned but otherwise  provided, including facilities that were provided for free.
States generally reported that a small percentage of buildings in their one- stop delivery system were located on the campuses of community  colleges. In our survey, 31 states reported having at least one facility  located on a community college campus, and these states reported a total  of 186 physical locations—approximately 6 percent—on campus. North  Carolina reported the highest percentage of facilities located on  community college campuses at 25 percent, and with 31 physical locations,  represented 17 percent of the total number. (See app. VII for more  information about the numbers of physical locations on the campuses of  community colleges.)
section_title: States Frequently Cited WIA and the Employment Service as the Two Largest Funding Sources Used for Infrastructure Costs
paragraphs: While most states relied heavily on one or two programs to support one- stop infrastructure costs, some states dispersed the costs among  numerous programs. WIA and the Employment Service were the two  programs most often identified as funding sources used for  infrastructure—the nonpersonnel costs—of operating comprehensive one- stop centers. In our 2007 survey, most states reported that WIA and the  Employment Service were the largest contributors toward infrastructure  costs for program year 2005. (See fig. 5.) Of the 48 states that were able to  report on infrastructure funding for comprehensive one-stop centers, 23  states identified WIA as the top funding source and 19 states reported that  Employment Service funds were the largest funding source. Three states  reported that TANF funds were the largest funding source. (See fig. 6.) The  choices states made regarding infrastructure funding appear to be  independent of state size, population density, or the number of  comprehensive one-stop centers.
While WIA and the Employment Service were the primary funding sources  used to support infrastructure costs in program year 2005, states varied in  their ability to report more detailed information on infrastructure costs in  our survey. Of the states that could report, more states reported that a  greater percentage of their Employment Service funds than WIA funds  were used to finance the infrastructure of the one-stop comprehensive  centers. (See fig. 7.) Specifically, of the 41 states that provided estimates  for the percentage of their Employment Service allotment used for  infrastructure costs, 29 reported using more than 10 percent. Conversely,  of the 29 states that provided estimates for the percentage of WIA funds,  21 states reported using 10 percent or less. (See app. VIII for state-reported  data on the percentage of WIA and Employment Service allocations used  for infrastructure costs during program year 2005.)
Moreover, for program year 2005, states reported less reliance on other  programs for funding the one-stop infrastructure costs than in the past.  (See table 3.) For example, over a 5-year period, the number of states that  reported using Vocational Rehabilitation program funds for infrastructure  costs declined from 37 to 24. While the number of states relying on TANF  funds has declined, more states identified it as one of the three largest  funding sources for infrastructure costs for program year 2005 than  previously reported. Sixteen states reported that TANF was one of the  three largest contributors to financing one-stop centers, including 6 of the  9 states with single statewide workforce investment areas. In fiscal year  2000, 12 states reported that TANF was one of the three largest funding  sources.
Regarding the stand-alone offices, we asked states to provide estimates of  their state’s total Employment Service allotment used to support the  infrastructure of these offices. Among the 6 states that provided this  information, they reported that the amount ranged from 0 to 14 percent,  and the overall average was approximately 5 percent. However, the state  with the most stand-alone Employment Service offices, Iowa, reported  that it did not use any of its Employment Service allotment to support the  infrastructure of these offices. Instead, Iowa financed the infrastructure  costs of its 30 stand-alone offices with state general funds.
section_title: Nearly All States Submitted Customer Satisfaction Data, and Some States Have Established Customer Satisfaction Measures beyond What Is Reported to Labor
paragraphs: Nearly all states submitted customer satisfaction data for both job seekers  and employers to Labor for program year 2005, as required under WIA. In  addition, 12 states reported that they had established measures for  customer satisfaction beyond what is required. For example, some states  collected information on waiting time for assistance, helpfulness of the  services received, and extent to which services met customer  expectations. Of these 12 states, 10 established additional customer  satisfaction measures for both job seekers and participating employers,  and 2 states established additional customer satisfaction measures just for  job seekers. (See table 4.)
Since 2005, when Labor moved to using common measures, Labor has  granted, upon request, waivers to states exempting them from reporting on  participant and employer customer satisfaction. As of August, 2007, Labor  reported that 20 states, including the District of Columbia, have such  waivers, exempting them from reporting customer satisfaction data. In  addition, all states report on employment-related outcomes for the  common performance measures—three for adults and three for youth— and are required to negotiate with Labor separate goals and report on  outcomes for both the WIA Adult and WIA Dislocated Worker programs.
According to state officials, comprehensive one-stop centers also collect  customer satisfaction data not required by the state, but the extent to  which one-stop centers are collecting information varies considerably.  Eight states reported that all of their comprehensive one-stop centers  collected additional information on customer satisfaction, and 9 more  states reported that the majority of their one-stop centers collected  additional information. Conversely, 7 states reported that none of their  one-stop centers collected any additional information from job seekers or  participating employers. (See fig. 8.) (See app. IX for states’ reporting on  the extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on  customer satisfaction.)
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Our study presents a snapshot in time of the evolving structure of the one- stop system in each of the 50 states. Because WIA provided states and  localities with flexibility in deciding how to implement the one-stop  system, the picture continues to evolve as systems are tailored to meet  ever changing local needs. The results of our survey suggest that states  and localities have developed a variety of different approaches to deliver  services. However, nine states reported operating at least one stand-alone  Employment Service office outside the one-stop delivery system, a  situation prohibited by the Wagner-Peyser Act and its implementing   regulations. Although the services provided may be useful, because these  offices are not linked to the one-stop system in any way—either  electronically or by referral, program participants may not be receiving the  complete range of services they need to gain employment or other job- related assistance. It may also be the case that these separate systems  result in duplication of effort and inefficient use of resources. We support  Labor’s steps thus far to integrate Wagner-Peyser-funded employment  services into the one-stop system, but they have resulted in only modest  improvement. Without further integration, these separate stand-alone  offices may continue to create confusion for clients, result in duplication  of effort, and undermine the key goal of WIA—to consolidate the nation’s  workforce development system.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Labor step up action to ensure  compliance with the Wagner-Peyser Act and its implementing regulations  by requiring that all stand-alone offices be affiliated or linked in some way,  either electronically or through direct referral, with the one-stop system.  Such actions may include additional technical assistance and working with  states to establish progress benchmarks with the understanding that  failure to meet the benchmarks may result in further action up to and  including a loss of grant funding.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Labor for review and comment. Labor  commented that the report provides significant information that will be  useful to Congress in reauthorizing WIA, but the department disagreed  with some of the report’s findings, the recommendation, and the report’s  title.
Specifically, Labor commented that it does not believe that the report’s  findings regarding the presence of unaffiliated stand-alone Employment  Service offices and the recommendation to step up action to bring them  into compliance are sound. Labor comments that it is not aware of any  specific instance of an unaffiliated, stand-alone Employment Service  office.  Labor states that requirements to become affiliated are broad and  easy to meet and, as a result, believes that unaffiliated offices do not exist.  Labor suggests that because we rely on a survey of states to collect the   information, the data are most likely the result of a misunderstanding on  the part of survey respondents. In conducting our work, we followed  generally accepted government auditing standards. We developed the  survey instrument based on a questionnaire used in previous studies, and,  for this study, we pretested it with state WIA administrators from five  states to ensure that it was easily understandable, unambiguous, and  unbiased. Furthermore, officials’ responses to other questions confirmed  their understanding, and as part of our quality control, we followed up  with state officials when their responses were ambiguous. In one case, for  example, responses were ambiguous on the questions related to stand-  alone offices. We conducted a follow-up conversation with a state official  who confirmed that the states’ stand-alone offices were not affiliated with  the one-stop system. We therefore believe that respondents understood  our questions and that our survey results are accurate. We stand by our  findings and our recommendation. Given that Labor reports requirements  to be affiliated with the one-stop system are easy to meet, we hope that  Labor will take steps to ensure that all states are meeting those  requirements. In addition, Labor notes that withholding funding for  noncompliance would be difficult and inefficient. We concur that  withholding funds would be draconian, and we would hope that, given the  ease in meeting the requirements, no state would suffer this consequence.
In addition, Labor expressed concerns that while we note a number of  actions undertaken by officials to better foster coordination, we have not  fully reported all steps Labor has taken. We have modified the text to  reflect the new information provided in Labor’s written comments.
Finally, Labor stated that the report’s draft title does not fully reflect the  broad range of topics discussed in this report. We have modified the title.  Labor’s entire comments are in appendix X.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its  issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary  of Labor, relevant congressional committees, and others who are  interested. Copies will also be made available at no charge on GAO’s Web  site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any  questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found on the last page  of this report. Other major contributors are listed in appendix XI.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our study assessed (1) the current composition of states’ one-stop systems  and how this has changed over time, (2) what funds are primarily used to  support states’ one-stop system infrastructure and how this has changed  over time, and (3) the extent to which states are monitoring customer  satisfaction with service delivery at one-stop centers.
To provide information on how state and local one-stop delivery systems  established under Workforce Investment Act (WIA) deliver employment  and training services to job seekers and employers, we conducted an  electronic survey of state workforce officials in 50 states. We did not  survey the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. territories.  The survey included questions on states’ one-stop delivery systems related  to the    numbers of local workforce investment areas and participants served;    numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers, satellite or affiliated sites,  and how these changed from program year 2003 to April 1, 2007;  infrastructure cost data for program year 2005;    use of stand-alone Employment Service offices;    mandatory programs and how these services were provided;    extent of integration of certain functions (e.g., reception area,  information systems, and intake forms) at comprehensive one-stop  centers; and    program monitoring of customer satisfaction.
The questionnaire was forwarded to state officials in April 2007, and  responses were received through late May 2007. We received surveys from  all 50 states, although some states did not answer every question. States’  survey responses were as of April 1, 2007. Because we administered the  survey to all 50 states, our results are not subject to sampling error.  However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce  other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For  example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted, or the  sources of information available to respondents in answering a question,  can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We included  steps in the development of the survey, the collection of data, and the  editing and analysis of data to minimize such nonsampling errors. To  reduce nonsampling error, the questionnaire was reviewed by survey  specialists and pretested with officials from 5 states to develop a  questionnaire that was relevant, easy to comprehend, unambiguous, and  unbiased. We made changes to the content and format of the questionnaire  based on the specialists’ reviews and the results of the pretests. Completed  questionnaires were keypunched, and each record was verified by  comparing them with their corresponding questionnaires, and any errors  were corrected. When the data were analyzed, a second independent  analyst checked all computer programs. Finally, to assess the reliability of  certain data obtained from the survey, we independently researched the  information from other publicly available sources.
In order to analyze trends in states’ one-stop delivery systems, we  compared 2007 survey data with survey data from 2000 and 2001. In  addition to our surveys, we conducted a literature review to identify  relevant findings from other studies—including those sponsored by  Labor—that examined one-stop delivery systems. We conducted our work  between April 2007 and August 2007 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Survey of States on WIA One- Stop Centers
section_title: Appendix III: Numbers of Local Workforce Investment Areas (LWIA) and Comprehensive One-Stop Centers, and Related Information by State, as of April 1, 2007
section_title: Appendix IV: Changes in Numbers of Comprehensive One-Stop Centers and Satellite or Affiliated Sites by State, 2001, 2003, and 2007
subsections: section_title: Number of comprehensive
paragraphs: Percentage change cannot be calculated.
State did not report this information.
section_title: Appendix V: Programs Typically Available at Comprehensive One-Stop Centers by State
paragraphs: In our survey, we asked states to consider the typical comprehensive one- stop center in their state and identify federal programs that were most  often provided on-site. Figure 9 summarizes a typical one-stop center for  each state.
section_title: Appendix VI: Distribution of Stand-alone Employment Service Offices in States, as of April 1, 2007, and Employment Service Funds Used for Infrastructure
paragraphs: State did not report this information.
section_title: Appendix VII: Number and Percentage of Physical Locations at Community Colleges by State, 2007
section_title: Appendix VIII: States’ Reporting on Comprehensive One-Stop Centers Collecting Additional Information on Customer Satisfaction, Program Year 2005
section_title: Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director  Dianne M. Blank, Assistant Director  Timothy Hall, Analyst-in-Charge Thomas McCabe made significant contributions to this report in all facets  of the work. In addition, Stuart Kaufman assisted in the design and  analysis of the national survey; Jean McSween provided methodological  assistance, Jessica Botsford provided legal support, and Susannah  Compton helped develop the report’s message.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve  the Workforce System. GAO-07-1051T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007.
Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve  Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program  Impact. GAO-07-594. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 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.
National Emergency Grants: Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award  Timeliness and Data Collection, but Further Steps Can Improve Process.  GAO-06-870. Washington, D.C.: September 5, 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.
Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but  Labor Needs to Make Data Available. GAO-06-53. Washington, D.C.:  December 9, 2005.
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 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.
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.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate  Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts May  Not Be Sufficient. GAO-05-54. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed  Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help.  GAO-04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.
National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve  Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant  Awards and Improve Data. GAO-04-496. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve  Quality of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services.  GAO-04-308. Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004.
Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Worker Training and  Employment through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with  Federally Funded Programs. GAO-04-282. Washington, D.C.: February 13,  2004.
Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on  State Allocations. GAO-03-1043. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to  Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization.   GAO-03-884T. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to  Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and  Information Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18,  2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for  Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO-03-636. Washington, D.C.:  April 25, 2003.
Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business  Needs, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for  Some Workers. GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003.
Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and  Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to  Other Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: States’ Spending Is on Track, but Better  Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting. GAO-03-239. Washington,  D.C.: November 22, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate  Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective  Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service  Strategies, but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program  Development. GAO-02-413. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding  Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274.  Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance  Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness.  GAO-02-275. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns  over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2001. Also  testimony GAO-02-94T.
Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of  TANF Services. GAO/T-HEHS-00-145. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000.