The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 requires states and localities to bring together about 17 federally funded employment and training services into a single system—the one-stop system. Funded through four federal agencies, these programs, also known as the mandatory partner programs (or more simply, mandatory partners), are to provide services through a statewide network of one-stop career centers. (See table 1.) Three of these 17 programs, which were created and funded by Title I of WIA to provide services to adults, dislocated workers, and youth, replace those previously funded under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). The Department of Labor distributes funds for these three programs to the states, and the states in turn distribute funds to designated local areas within the states based on formulas prescribed by WIA. WIA also established performance measures that states and localities must track in order to demonstrate the programs’ effectiveness. The performance measures primarily focus on entered employment rates, employment retention rates, earnings changes, and credential rates. WIA programs provide for three levels of services for adults and dislocated workers: core, intensive, and training. Core services include basic services such as job search and labor market information. These activities may be self-service or may require some staff assistance. Intensive services include such activities as comprehensive assessment and case management, which require greater staff involvement. Training services include such activities as occupational skills training or on-the-job training. WIA requires the establishment of workforce investment boards at the state level and in local areas. The state boards are responsible for a number of functions, including the development and improvement of the statewide workforce investment system and the designation of local areas. The state board assists in the preparation of the state plan and the annual report, both of which are submitted to the Secretary of Labor. The local workforce investment board sets policy for the local area, and its specific duties include developing a comprehensive 5-year local plan and selecting one-stop operators. WIA contains a number of provisions to ensure that individuals with disabilities are adequately served. The most important of these provisions is Section 188, which prohibits any program or activity funded or otherwise financially assisted in whole or part under WIA from discriminating on the basis of disability as well as race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or political affiliation or belief. To help states and local areas implement the Section 188 provisions, the Department of Labor issued interim final regulations in November 1999. These regulations, which have the force of law, describe requirements for the recipients of financial assistance under WIA Title I, and for programs and activities operated by the one-stop partners as part of the one-stop system. The regulations also identify how recipients will be held accountable for ensuring nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities. The WIA Section 188 regulations contain certain provisions that prohibit recipients of WIA financial assistance from taking certain discriminatory actions. For example, recipients must not: provide significant assistance to a person or entity that discriminates in providing any aid, benefits, services, or training to registrants, applicants, or participants; make a selection for the site or location of a facility that has a impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out individuals with disabilities, unless such criteria are necessary for the provision of the aid, benefit, service, training, program, or activity being offered. Further, WIA Section 188 regulations contain provisions that oblige recipients to take certain positive actions to provide comprehensive access to WIA programs and services. For example, these regulations require some recipients of WIA financial assistance—those who are in facilities or parts of facilities that are constructed or altered on their behalf—to make those facilities architecturally accessible. In contrast, recipients of WIA financial assistance who are in unaltered existing facilities are not necessarily required to make those facilities architecturally accessible, but are subject to other requirements for accessibility, known as program access, which specify that a recipient must operate each service, program, or activity so that it, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. Recipients of WIA financial assistance do not have to make each of their existing facilities or every part of an existing facility accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, and can satisfy the accessibility requirements for existing facilities by redesigning equipment, reassigning services to accessible buildings, assigning aides to beneficiaries, and providing home visits, among other options. As part of providing comprehensive access, WIA Section 188 regulations require recipients of WIA financial assistance to take a number of additional actions when administering their programs or activities. Under these provisions, recipients must: take steps to ensure that communications with individuals with disabilities are as effective as communications with others, including providing appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary; provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities who are applicants, registrants, or eligible applicants/registrants for, or participants in, employees of, or applicants for, employment with their programs and activities, unless providing the accommodation would cause undue hardship; make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, unless making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity; provide the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities; and take appropriate steps, such as advertising and marketing, to ensure that they are providing universal access to their WIA financially assisted programs and activities. The regulations also require recipients of WIA financial assistance to establish an administrative structure so that they ensure compliance with WIA’s nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions. Each recipient, except small recipients and service providers, must designate an equal opportunity (EO) officer who is responsible for ensuring that the recipient complies with Section 188 regulations. EO officers’ responsibilities include: monitoring and investigating activities by recipients of WIA financial assistance to ensure that they do not violate WIA Section 188 regulations, reviewing written policies to ensure that those policies are nondiscriminatory, and developing and publishing the recipient’s procedures for processing discrimination complaints. Recipients of WIA financial assistance must also provide written notification that they do not discriminate on the basis of disability or on other prohibited bases. This notification must be placed prominently in the facility and distributed through other means. In addition, recipients of WIA financial assistance must collect and maintain data necessary to allow Labor to determine whether the recipient is complying with Section 188 of WIA and the implementing regulations. The Director of Labor’s Civil Rights Center determines which data are necessary. Under WIA Section 188 regulations, the governor of each state is responsible for, among other things: oversight of all WIA financially assisted state programs, ensuring compliance with WIA Section 188 and its implementing regulations, and negotiating with recipients to secure voluntary compliance when noncompliance is found. Moreover, both the Governor and the recipient of WIA financial assistance are liable for all violations of Section 188 unless the Governor has, among other things, established, signed, and adhered to an MOA. The MOA must be in writing and describe how the state programs and recipients of WIA financial assistance have satisfied the requirements of certain regulatory provisions, including those regarding people with disabilities. In addition, the Director of Labor’s CRC has oversight responsibilities under the Section 188 regulations, which include: reviewing the activities of a governor, including the adequacy of the MOA, and investigating and resolving complaints alleging violations of Section 188. As part of its oversight responsibility, CRC, with assistance from ETA and ODEP, issued a compliance checklist on July 25, 2003, to ensure nondiscrimination and equal opportunity to persons with disabilities participating in WIA programs and activities. This checklist, officially known as the WIA Section 188 Disability Checklist, identifies the regulations implementing Section 188 of WIA, including portions of the regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and covers requirements applicable to local area grant recipients regarding the operation of their programs and activities. The checklist is based on the elements required by the MOA and includes lists of questions for each element of the MOA. For some of the elements, the questions are followed by examples of concrete actions that can be taken to ensure compliance with Section 188 requirements. The appendix to the Checklist also includes additional examples of policies, procedures, and other steps that local area grant recipients can take to ensure compliance with Section 188. Labor has awarded grants to facilitate comprehensive access to employment and training programs for persons with disabilities, and local areas and one-stop centers have also made numerous efforts, as well as various degrees of progress, in facilitating comprehensive access to their programs and services. Specifically, ETA has awarded over 100 grants to states and local entities for disability-related activities, such as enhancing comprehensive access to the one-stops. States and local areas have used these grants for a range of efforts, including assessing one-stop architectural accessibility, acquiring assistive technology devices, and increasing staff capacity to provide services to persons with disabilities. Between 2000 and 2004, ETA awarded state and local entities a total of approximately $65 million in competitive Work Incentive Grants in order to enhance one-stops’ capacity to provide programs and services to persons with disabilities, which included improving one-stop accessibility. ETA awarded 113 grants in four rounds between 2000 and 2004. (See table 2.) On the basis of its experience administering the first two rounds of grants, ETA has targeted its specific grant objectives—and, therefore, its resources—to meet the emerging needs that states, local areas, and one- stops have identified in providing programs and services to persons with disabilities. ETA’s objectives for the early rounds of grants were relatively broad, and as a result, grantees were permitted to use the funds to undertake a range of activities, including: assessing one-stops’ architectural accessibility; acquiring assistive technology devices; conducting outreach to the disability community; linking and coordinating with community disability-related agencies, such as community mental health agencies and independent living centers; training existing one-stop staff on disability issues; and making available staff who have the experience, knowledge, and skills necessary to address a broad range of disability-related issues. By the third round of grants, in 2003, ETA had begun to focus its priorities more narrowly—though not exclusively—on increasing the capacity of one-stop staff to provide services to persons with disabilities. According to the third round grant notice, previous grantees had found that building staff capacity was successful in improving overall service delivery in their one-stops. ETA officials said that although they believe that building staff capacity will enhance one-stops’ progress toward making their services available to persons with disabilities, they recognize that some one-stops may also still need to address other issues, such as meeting the architectural access requirements. In addition to targeting their grant objectives, ETA officials said they plan to change the process by which they award grants. ETA used a competitive process to award all four rounds of grants, and as a result, according to ETA officials, some states or local areas that needed grants may not have received them. ETA officials said they plan to use a different process in the future, which would allow them to target funding toward specific areas, such as states that did not receive grants in the first four rounds and/or states where they would like to intensify current grant activities. ETA, in conjunction with the Social Security Administration (SSA), which administers employment support programs for its disability beneficiaries, has provided approximately $24 million to fund a demonstration project focused on the establishment and training of one-stop Disability Program Navigators. The Navigators’ role is to address the needs of persons with disabilities seeking to use the one-stop system. Since July 2003, Navigator grants have been awarded in a total of 17 states. At the time of our review, this initiative had led to 221 Disability Program Navigators working in or with one-stops in those states. As designed by ETA and SSA, in collaboration with ODEP, Navigators are to provide expertise and serve as a resource to one-stops as well as persons with disabilities. ETA and SSA expected that Navigators would, in part, carry out many of the same types of accessibility-related activities that were funded under the initial Work Incentive Grants. The third and fourth rounds of the Work Incentive Grants have led to the hiring of staff who can perform functions similar to those of a Navigator. At the time of our review, 122 Navigator-like staff had been established through the Work Incentive Grants. Eleven of the sites we visited had either Disability Program Navigators or Work Incentive Grant Navigators. Some of the Navigators we interviewed told us they had the following job responsibilities: providing disability-related staff training; helping staff locate resources for specific persons with disabilities, such as accommodations or services in the community; developing relationships with disability-related service providers, such as VR and other community agencies; and helping to ensure the accessibility of the one-stop, such as by conducting accessibility assessments or developing accessibility plans. During our site visits, we found that local areas and one-stop centers had made various efforts and degrees of progress in facilitating comprehensive access to the one-stops’ programs and services. Specifically, we found the following: Architectural access. Our site visits showed that most local area and one-stop officials were working to implement architectural access standards, which are required by the WIA Section 188 regulations. Nearly all of the sites we visited had undergone at least one architectural accessibility assessment within the last few years, and the assessments were typically conducted by VR or other disability-related agencies. Our review of these assessments showed that there were often considerable differences in the degree of architectural access that the locations had achieved. For example, some of the sites had either no or few problems with regard to architectural access. Other locations had a number of access-related problems, including those related to parking, ramps, and doors, as well as restrooms and signage. Some officials at these locations told us they had made at least some changes to improve architectural access. For example, some changes included: adding or changing accessible parking spaces to meet requirements; installing signage or changing existing signage to meet requirements; building a new exterior ramp because the existing one did not meet architectural access requirements; and installing electric door openers. Auxiliary aids and services. Many of the one-stops we visited had acquired auxiliary aids and services, such as assistive technology and materials in alternate formats, which the WIA Section 188 regulations require that one-stops provide to persons with disabilities when necessary. Auxiliary aids and services include a range of devices, equipment, and services that provide effective communication for persons with various types of impairments. According to ETA, the auxiliary aids and services requirement covers any method of communication, including verbal, written, computer-based, or telephone communications. Assistive technology refers to products or equipment that can be used to help people with disabilities perform their major life functions. Some types of assistive technology can be used to make existing information technology, including computers and telephones, available to persons with disabilities. Alternate formats can, for instance, make written or visual materials available to persons with visual impairments or make oral information available to persons with hearing impairments. Table 3 describes selected types of auxiliary aids and services that were available in some of the one- stops we visited. At the time of our site visits, a few one-stops had either recently installed assistive technology for the first time or were still in the process of acquiring it. However, other sites had assistive technology, and some or all of the staff had already received training in how to use it. Some of these sites offered a range of devices, which could assist many types of impairments. Given the wide variety of devices available, some local areas and one-stops targeted their resources, at least initially, toward items that might be used frequently. For example, one local area—working with an agency that had assistive technology expertise—collected data on the types of impairments that were most prevalent among potential customers and then used these data to determine which devices to purchase first. In addition, a couple of officials said that their one-stops had some materials, such as basic orientation materials, routinely available in Braille or large- print formats. Some officials told us that they did not have any of their materials routinely available in alternate formats, although they would provide these to customers upon request. In some cases, officials said that they could rapidly provide customers with certain types of alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, computer diskette, or compact disk, through the use of their assistive technology or computers. Reasonable accommodations. Some officials and staff we interviewed said they try to make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations, which are required by the WIA Section 188 regulations, enable persons with disabilities to receive aid, benefits, services, or training equal to that provided to persons without disabilities. For example, a number of officials and staff mentioned that although they did not have a qualified American Sign Language interpreter on-site at their one-stops, they have obtained an interpreter upon a customer’s request. However, during our site visits, we also found that local area and one-stops’ policies and procedures for providing reasonable accommodations varied. For example, officials from a few local areas and one-stops said they referred to their state workforce agency’s or their local government’s policies for guidance on this issue. A few officials said that they had developed their own local accommodation policies or procedures, or planned to do so. For example, one local area developed written policies and procedures that provided information on how customers should request an accommodation, which staff could assist in providing a reasonable accommodation, and which staff were responsible for determining if the one-stop is able to provide the accommodation. In addition, some officials told us that when they have received accommodation requests, they have not maintained records on the types of accommodations requested or whether the one-stop provided these accommodations. However, in at least one of the local areas we visited, the local equal opportunity officer—who addressed all accommodation requests—said that he maintained records on this information. Integrated settings. During our site visits, we found variation in viewpoints regarding the practice of automatically referring persons with disabilities to VR for services. Even though agencies such as VR could provide services to persons with disabilities, the WIA Section 188 regulations require that one-stops allow persons with disabilities the opportunity to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to meet their needs. An integrated setting is one that enables persons with disabilities to interact with persons without disabilities. Although a referral to VR may be appropriate for some individuals, automatically referring all persons with disabilities to VR does not allow for the opportunity to receive services along with persons without disabilities. Moreover, an automatic referral to VR does not provide customers with an individualized assessment of their abilities and needs. Some local area and one-stop officials we interviewed acknowledged that automatic referrals to VR did occur in the past. However, a number of officials and staff understood that this practice is not appropriate, or said that it is not currently occurring in their one-stops. Some of these officials and staff said that services for persons with disabilities are determined on a case-by-case basis and that unless these individuals want or indicate that they need VR services, they are not referred to VR. Some WIA officials, as well as a few VR officials and others who have provided staff training on disability issues, explained that one-stop staff have been trained not to automatically refer persons with disabilities to VR. For example, staff were trained not to stereotype persons with disabilities or assume that they need VR services, or were trained to provide these customers with a choice regarding which services they use. However, during our site visits, officials in two local areas told us that they currently found it preferable or necessary to automatically refer persons with disabilities to VR. Officials from one local area stated that while a disability-related agency advised them that one-stop staff should not be automatically referring persons with disabilities to VR, they took exception to this guidance. The local area officials explained that it would be irresponsible of them not to fully utilize the expertise of the only mandatory disability partner in the WIA system. Officials from another local area said that although their long-term goal is to train one-stop staff to work directly with persons with disabilities, they believe that their one- stop staff are currently referring these customers to VR. Additionally, some WIA, VR, and disability-related agency officials also expressed concerns that trying to meet performance standards could provide an incentive for one-stops to automatically refer persons with disabilities to VR, only serve those with the least severe disabilities, or not serve them at all. Some officials explained that it is sometimes more difficult for persons with disabilities, particularly those with more severe disabilities, to find and retain jobs, and that it is often more costly for the one-stop to serve these individuals. Marketing and outreach. Some officials and staff we interviewed cited a variety of reasons why marketing the one-stops’ services and conducting outreach to persons with disabilities, which are activities required by the WIA Section 188 regulations, may be important. One of the reasons cited was that many individuals in the community, including those with disabilities, were still not aware of the types of programs and services that one-stops offer. For example, a one-stop official said that one-stops are often thought of as an employment service, without recognition that they can offer participants education, referrals to disability-related agencies for services, and other assistance. Some WIA officials and disability-related agency representatives also said that even when the disability community knows what the one-stops offer, the one-stops often have to overcome the belief that one-stops do not want to, or are not capable of, providing services to persons with disabilities. For example, the disability community may believe that the one-stops do not have assistive technology or provide other assistance to persons with disabilities. Additionally, some officials also stated that they believe that persons with disabilities are still more likely to seek services from disability-related organizations than from one-stops. Some of the officials from local areas and one-stops that had engaged in marketing and outreach efforts said they had used one or more community-based disability organizations in their efforts. For example, local areas or one-stops sometimes approached independent living centers, agencies that serve individuals with specific types of disabilities, or other organizations to inform them about the one-stops’ services and their accessible technology. Some officials also said they used brochures, television or radio ads, billboards, or other means to market their services to persons with disabilities. Other local area and one-stop officials told us about the specialized techniques they used, such as holding a yearly job fair for persons with disabilities, which provides attendees with information about one-stop services. Officials in a few local areas and one-stops, however, stated that they were hesitant to market their services to persons with disabilities. For example, one local area official was not confident about the ability of some one-stop staff to handle disability issues and, as a result, did not want to market what the one-stops in the area could not provide. An official in another local area expressed a similar viewpoint with regard to the lack of marketing around an assistive technology device that had not been used. The official stated that the local area had not advertised the device because he did not believe the one-stops in that area were fully capable of providing services to persons with disabilities. Staff training. Although the WIA Section 188 regulations do not specifically require that one-stop staff, other than the equal opportunity officer and his or her staff, receive training on disability, the WIA Section 188 Checklist includes training as one example of how one-stops can ensure compliance with WIA’s comprehensive access requirements. One- stop staff in the majority of the local areas we visited had received some disability-related information and training, but the range of topics covered varied across sites. For example, officials in at least one local area told us that they were still focusing on providing staff with disability awareness training, while officials, staff, and staff training providers in other locations described a wider range of training topics, such as: disability awareness or sensitivity training; types of services that VR provides, and the agency’s eligibility rules and criteria; types of disability-related agencies in the community, as well as who they serve, the types of services they offer, and their contact information; how to identify certain disabilities, including hidden disabilities such as mental illness or learning disabilities; and WIA Section 188 training. We also found that a few local areas and one-stops created comprehensive training programs or targeted their training to identified staff needs. For example, one local area created an extensive disability-training program that provides online and in-class training on a range of relevant disability- related issues and discusses these issues in the context of particular disabilities. This training program has been made available on a statewide basis. Also, in one state, staff at the three one-stops we visited had undergone, or were scheduled to undergo, an assessment of their training needs. These assessments were then going to be used to develop training plans for each of these one-stops. Some officials and staff stated that the available disability-related staff training was beneficial and provided positive outcomes. For example, some officials and staff said that the available training made staff more comfortable interacting with, and providing services to, persons with disabilities and helped them learn about the range of disability-related services that VR and other agencies in the community offer. However, other officials and staff expressed some concerns about the available training. For example, a few of these officials and staff said that they would like training on specific disability-related topics to be available, and in at least one case, local area and one-stop officials had concerns about how well their limited training prepared staff for providing services to persons with disabilities. Additionally, some of the officials, staff, and staff training providers we interviewed said that their training efforts were affected by high staff turnover and the prospect of staff forgetting the information learned in training if it is not used very often. Some officials, staff, and staff training providers said that offering ongoing training was important for these reasons or that they would like ongoing training to be available in their one-stops. One-stops, VR, and other disability-related agencies in the community have formed various relationships to provide services to persons with disabilities. From our site visits, we found that the structure of the one- stops’ relationships with VR varied, particularly in terms of whether co-location was occurring. While most of the one-stops we visited had VR staff on-site at least part of the time, four of the sites we visited had no on-site VR staff. Table 4 shows the co-location status of VR staff at the one-stops we visited. Officials from the sites at which full- or part-time co-location of VR staff was taking place said that co-location was beneficial for a variety of reasons. For example, some WIA and VR officials said that co-location itself helped the one-stop staff provide faster and less fragmented services to persons with disabilities because, when the one-stop staff made referrals to VR, they did not have to send customers off-site. A few officials also stated that co-location facilitated information sharing and helped build relationships between the staff in the two agencies. The reasons for VR staff not being on-site also varied, and included a lack of space in the one-stop, the inability of VR to break its lease at an existing local office, and lack of an interface between the one-stops’ and VR’s computer systems. The one-stops we visited also varied in terms of the extent to which they formed relationships with disability-related service providers other than VR. Although VR has extensive expertise in providing services to persons with disabilities, other disability agencies in the community also have expertise and resources that can benefit one-stops. At the time of our site visits, a few local areas and one-stops were relying primarily on VR and had not formed working relationships with any other disability agencies. However, other local areas and one-stops we visited had formed relationships with one or more disability-related organizations in the community, such as independent living centers, mental health agencies, and cognitive/developmental disability agencies. In at least one instance, a local area formed relationships with agencies that focus on particular impairments. This local area conducted a needs analysis and found that relationships with organizations that provide services to persons with psychiatric impairments, learning disabilities, and substance abuse issues were lacking. As a result, the local area conducted outreach to these types of organizations in order to initiate relationships with them. Officials from local areas and their one-stops, as well as those from VR and community disability agencies, cited a range of benefits to being able to refer their customers to one another for services, when it was appropriate to do so. For example, some WIA and VR officials said the one-stop’s relationship with VR allowed the two agencies to combine their resources to maximize the services they can provide to their customers. For example, for co-enrolled customers, one agency might pay for school tuition while another pays for books. Some local area and one-stop officials also said that referring customers to VR and other community disability agencies is beneficial because those agencies have the ability and funding to provide certain services that the one-stops cannot. In addition, officials in some local areas and one-stops said that VR and other community agencies’ willingness to conduct staff training, provide one- stop accessibility assessments, or participate in one-stop access committees was beneficial. VR and community disability agencies also cited a number of benefits to referring their customers to the one-stops, including access to the one- stops’ career resource centers’ computers and telephones, their workshop or training classes (such as those for computer skills, interview skills, and résumé-writing), and a range of job listings and employer connections broader than their own. VR officials also cited other benefits. For example, when a VR customer is faced with delayed services because VR is waiting for documents substantiating the customer’s disability, the one-stops can provide other services in the interim. Additionally, VR officials told us they find it useful to refer individuals who did not qualify for services through VR, whether because of limited funding or other reason, to the one-stop for services. Labor has taken several actions to ensure that persons with disabilities have comprehensive access to one-stops, including training, monitoring, and enforcement activities, but these efforts may not be sufficient. For example, Labor has not only funded grants, it has also provided training in ways to facilitate comprehensive accessibility in the one-stop centers. Specifically, within Labor, ETA and ODEP, along with SSA, provided Disability Program Navigator training in November 2003 in which successful approaches to ensuring comprehensive access to one-stops were discussed. Additional Disability Program Navigator training was provided in November 2004. Further, CRC, with assistance from ETA and ODEP has provided written guidance and assistance to one-stops on accommodations and other ways to improve comprehensive access for persons with disabilities. Also within Labor, CRC conducts national equal opportunity training annually. Its August 2004 training included topics such as new EO officer orientation, implementing an MOA, ensuring compliance with WIA Section 188, testing and assessment tools for improving services to persons with disabilities, and train-the-trainer EO training. In addition to providing training, CRC is the entity responsible for interpreting, monitoring, and enforcing WIA Section 188 regulations regarding programs receiving financial assistance from Labor, including the applicable comprehensive access and administrative regulatory requirements for one-stop centers. One key method Labor uses to ensure compliance with these regulations has been to require that each state’s governor establish and sign an MOA, which describes and contains supporting documentation of the policies, procedures, and systems that each state has established to ensure compliance. By signing the MOA, and submitting it to CRC, the governor agrees to adhere to its provisions. CRC provides guidance on preparing the MOA, reviews the adequacy of each state MOA submitted, and approves those MOAs that meet its standards. Currently, all governors have submitted MOAs that have been approved by CRC. After initial approval, states are to notify CRC of any updates to their MOAs, and every 2 years Labor requires states to review them and the manner in which they have been implemented, and determine whether their MOAs continue to be effective in ensuring compliance with the requirements of WIA Section 188 and its implementing regulations. In addition, CRC monitors states’ compliance with the nondiscrimination, comprehensive access, and administrative regulatory requirements by conducting on-site technical assistance compliance reviews at selected locations. To facilitate the review process, CRC conducts a 2- to 3-day training session for state, local workforce investment area, and one-stop center staff. In 2003, CRC completed its first phase of on-site training, technical assistance, and compliance reviews in two large metropolitan areas in two states, Miami/Dade County, Florida, and New York, New York. According to Labor’s 2003 Annual Report, CRC focuses its reviews on large metropolitan areas so as to maximize the use of its resources. The annual report notes that the large labor markets in these areas provide the opportunity for gaining a representative picture of the degree of compliance with nondiscrimination and equal opportunity laws and regulations. In both metropolitan areas it reviewed, CRC identified instances of noncompliance, including the existence of barriers limiting services to persons with disabilities. At one of the two metropolitan areas, CRC found significant differences between the disability-related requirements in WIA Section 188 and its implementing regulations and the policies, procedures, and systems that were actually being used. For example, CRC found that the local area had developed a service delivery system in which customers with disabilities were routinely being served by programs or activities that were separate from those used to serve customers without disabilities. Officials at the local area told CRC such a service delivery system had developed in part because there was a general sentiment among disability- related service providers that many of their customers did not feel comfortable in the one-stops. The WIA Section 188 regulations, however, require that services to qualified persons with disabilities be provided in the most integrated settings appropriate to the needs of those customers. Therefore, as noted in CRC’s review, a one-stop center generally should not refer customers with disabilities to a separate program or activity until after it has conducted an individualized assessment of a customer’s needs, and determined that the channels used to serve customers without disabilities cannot provide equally effective aid, benefits, services, or training to persons with disabilities. In addition, the ultimate decision whether to accept the referral to a separate program or activity must be left up to the customer with a disability. If the customer declines to accept the referral, the one-stop must serve the customer with a disability through the same programs or activities used to serve all other customers. In addition, CRC found that the EO officer at the local area in that metropolitan area had not been provided with sufficient staff, other resources, or adequate support from top management to carry out his duties. As a result, staff at the local workforce investment area and one-stops had little understanding of their disability-related or other obligations under WIA Section 188 regulations. At the other metropolitan area reviewed, CRC found that some of the policies, procedures, and systems in the state’s approved MOA had not been fully implemented. For instance, the local workforce investment area had developed an intake eligibility form for use by the one-stops that included questions concerning whether or not the customer had a disability that was or was not a substantial barrier to employment. Frontline staff at the one-stop centers told CRC that all customers were welcome to use self-service and core services. However, CRC found that customers who indicated on the intake form that they had a disability could not receive intensive or training services unless they provided the one-stop with documentation to support their disability, even when disability was not an eligibility criterion to receive such services. CRC found that the use of the intake form, combined with the requirement that customers provide documentation of their disability, unnecessarily screened out people with disabilities from receiving intensive and training services, even though Labor’s WIA Section 188 regulations require that the one-stops must not deny any qualified person with a disability the opportunity to participate in, or benefit from, a WIA-funded program or activity because of that person’s disability. On the basis of its findings, CRC required the state entities responsible for WIA in which the two metropolitan areas were located to provide it with written responses of the corrective actions they planned to make. In addition, in May 2004, the CRC Director requested that all states complete, for themselves and their largest local area, a self-assessment tool to assess compliance with the equal opportunity and nondiscrimination laws and regulations. The self-assessment tool, which provides a structured approach for monitoring compliance, was adapted from the WIA Section 188 Disability Checklist. For each state and its largest local workforce investment area, the self-assessment tool asks whether or not each measure of compliance has been met. For all unmet measures, the self-assessment tool asks for a written explanation of how and when the measure will be met. At the time of our review, CRC was in the process of developing a plan to analyze the qualitative responses they would receive from the states. CRC anticipates using the information provided by these self-assessments and from its on-site reviews to identify exemplary practices as well as areas needing improvement. In addition to the two on-site reviews CRC conducted in 2003, CRC is in the process of conducting two additional reviews in two large metropolitan areas in two other states, which it plans to complete during fiscal year 2005. To date the monitoring and enforcement efforts that have been or are being conducted account for less than 2 percent of the total number of local areas and one-stops nationwide. Moreover, the CRC Director said that she had not yet determined whether CRC would conduct additional on-site reviews. Limited staff and competing work priorities may hinder CRC’s ability to conduct additional reviews. The Director noted that CRC has experienced an erosion in the number of staff since 1998, and she did not foresee any change to this trend in the future. The 44 professional and administrative staff that CRC currently has are responsible for not only all issues involving discrimination in one-stops and other Labor-funded programs, but also for all discrimination issues involving the more than 17,000 employees at Labor. Moreover, the Director explained that these staff are also responsible for addressing other workload priorities, such as issues to improve access to programs and activities for persons who are limited in their English proficiency. Information about the employment outcomes of persons with disabilities is limited by the extent to which disability data are collected and the overall methods used for collecting data for WIA’s performance measures. The three WIA-funded programs—Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth— have performance measures established under WIA that states must track and report in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the programs. These performance measures gauge program results in such areas as job placement, employment retention, earnings changes, and skill attainment. In addition to providing information about all participants in the three WIA-funded programs, Labor also publishes outcome information about certain subpopulations, including veterans, older individuals, and persons with disabilities. The information Labor publishes on the employment outcomes of persons with disabilities, however, is limited for several reasons. One reason is that the information is limited to the subpopulation of persons with disabilities who disclose their disability status, and therefore the employment outcomes may be misleading for the total population of persons with disabilities receiving services through WIA. The WIA Section 188 regulations require one-stops to collect, maintain, and report job seekers’ demographic data—including disability status—to ensure that discrimination is not occurring. Labor has issued guidance stating that one-stops must inquire about disability status from job seekers upon registration for services. Such inquiries must be asked of all job seekers, but an individual’s decision to disclose his or her disability status must be completely voluntary. Even though an individual declines to indicate his or her disability status, the one-stop must still provide services to the individual. Further, the collection of information on employment outcomes, including the information on persons with disabilities, is limited to those persons who are registered for WIA services. Current law does not require job seekers who receive services that are self-service and informational in nature to be included in the performance measures. Labor’s guidance instructs states to register and report on adults and dislocated workers who receive core services that require significant staff assistance designed to help with job seeking or acquiring occupational skills, but states have flexibility in deciding what constitutes significant staff assistance. We have previously reported that most of the one-stop customers who participate in self-directed services, and receive only limited staff assistance, are estimated to be the largest proportion of job seekers under WIA. But since they are not registered for services, they are excluded from the employment outcome data published by Labor. In that report, we also noted that Labor said that it is developing a new reporting system that would enable states to report activity and outcomes for all WIA participants. According to Labor, tracking all one-stop job seekers will enable officials to obtain information about who is served, what services are provided, which partner programs provided the services, and what outcomes are achieved. Finally, the performance measurement system developed under WIA may have a negative effect on the economic outcomes of some people with disabilities because the performance levels may provide a disincentive to serve certain clients, including those with disabilities. Under WIA, performance levels are tied to incentives and sanctions so that states can be financially rewarded if they meet them or penalized if they do not. As such, local areas may be reluctant to provide WIA-funded services to job seekers, including persons with disabilities, who may be less likely than others to find employment or experience an increase in earnings when they are placed in jobs. To address this issue, we recently recommended that the Secretary of Labor develop an adjustment model or other systematic method to account for different populations and local economic conditions when negotiating performance levels. In commenting on our recommendation, Labor agreed with the importance of taking economic conditions and characteristics of the population into account when setting performance expectations and had commissioned a study of adjustment models that could better take these differences into account. The WIA one-stop system’s ability to provide comprehensive access to its programs, services, and activities can affect whether, and how, individuals with disabilities participate in the American workforce. Although Labor has developed specific regulations requiring that people with disabilities have equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from the programs and services offered in the WIA one-stop system, its efforts to date may not be sufficient to ensure that result. Five years after Labor issued regulations implementing the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA Section 188, the agency has yet to develop and implement a long-term plan for ensuring that the one-stop system complies with the comprehensive access requirements for persons with disabilities. Although CRC, ETA and ODEP have worked together on some comprehensive access projects, they have not developed an overall plan to conduct the activities necessary to ensure comprehensive access to one-stops for all Americans. To improve comprehensive access for persons with disabilities to the one- stop system, we recommend that Labor develop and implement a long- term plan for ensuring that the one-stop system complies with the comprehensive access requirements for people with disabilities. Moreover, in this era of constrained resources, Labor should utilize the expertise of CRC, ETA, and ODEP staff in developing such a plan. We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Labor and Education for their review and comments. Education did not have comments on our report. Labor generally agreed with our recommendation and said that even more could be done to ensure comprehensive access within the one-stop system. Specifically, ETA has pledged to work with ODEP and CRC to develop and implement a long-term plan for addressing comprehensive access in the one-stop system. ETA also suggested that the development of such a long-term plan should include all of the participating agencies and programs. Moreover, ODEP stated that the comprehensive plan should also address nonspecialized disability supports and services, such as transportation. ODEP and CRC also provided us with some general comments on our report. ODEP noted that, in addition to the WIG and Navigator grants, Labor supports other efforts to facilitate the inclusion of people with disabilities in the one-stop system. Although our report focuses on those grants that are most directly related to facilitating comprehensive access in the one-stop system, we have added examples of some of the types of grants that ODEP has awarded to support employment-related initiatives for people with disabilities. In addition, CRC asked us to clarify our use of the term comprehensive access. CRC expressed some concern that we had included administrative requirements in the use of the term comprehensive access. CRC believed that administrative requirements should not be included as they are not specifically disability-related. We have modified the language in our report to clarify that the administrative requirements are not included in the term comprehensive access. ETA, ODEP, and CRC also provided us with technical comments and clarifications, which we have incorporated as appropriate. Copies of their comments appear in appendix I. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, relevant congressional committees, and others who are interested. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. The report will be available 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. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. William E. Hutchinson and Caterina Pisciotta made significant contributions to all phases of this report. In addition, Jessica Botsford and Richard Burkard provided legal assistance, and Amy Buck assisted in report development. 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: 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: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization. GAO-03-884T. Washington, D.C.: June 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. 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 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: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness. GAO-02-275. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002. Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative Voting Methods. GAO-02-107. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001. Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001. Workforce Investment Act: New Requirements Create Need for More Guidance. GAO-02-94T. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.

Summary: The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 includes provisions intended to ensure that people with disabilities have equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from the programs and activities offered through one-stop career centers (one-stops). But little is known, and questions have been raised, about how well this system is working for persons with disabilities. This report examines (1) what the Department of Labor (Labor), states, and the one-stops have done to facilitate comprehensive access to the WIA one-stop system; (2) the various relationships that the one-stops have established with disability-related agencies to provide services to persons with disabilities; (3) what Labor has done to ensure that the one-stops are meeting the comprehensive access requirements, and the factors that have affected efforts to ensure compliance; and (4) what is known about the employment outcomes of persons with disabilities who use the one-stop system. Labor has awarded grants to facilitate comprehensive access, which is defined in this report as providing people with disabilities the equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from the programs, activities, and/or employment offered by the WIA one-stop system. States and local areas have used these grants for a range of efforts, including increasing staff capacity to provide services to persons with disabilities. During our site visits to 18 local areas and one-stops, we found that officials at most sites were working to implement architectural access requirements. Moreover, local areas and one-stops varied in the degree to which they had addressed other areas of comprehensive access. For example, a few sites had only begun to acquire assistive technology devices; other sites had assistive technology and had trained some or all of their staff in how to use it. One-stops have established various relationships to provide services to persons with disabilities. The structure of the one-stops' relationships with state vocational rehabilitation (VR) programs varied, as did the extent to which they have formed relationships with disability-related service providers other than VR. A few local areas and one-stops primarily formed relationships with VR, while others had also formed relationships with community-based disability organizations. Although Labor has taken several actions to ensure comprehensive access to one-stops, these efforts may not be sufficient. Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Civil Rights Center (CRC), and Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) have issued guidance and assistance on the regulatory requirements. CRC also has conducted on-site reviews at local areas and one-stops in two large metropolitan areas in two states. In both areas, CRC identified instances of noncompliance with these requirements. Reviews in two other states will be completed during fiscal year 2005, but Labor has not developed a long-range plan for how it will carry out its oversight and enforcement responsibilities beyond 2005. To date, CRC's monitoring and enforcement efforts account for less than 2 percent of the total number of local areas and one-stops nationwide. The CRC Director stated that she had not yet determined whether CRC would conduct additional on-site reviews. The information that Labor publishes on employment outcomes for people with disabilities is limited for a variety of reasons. Disclosure about disability status is voluntary, thus the information about employment outcomes may be misleading. The collection of information on the employment outcomes of WIA participants is limited to those who are registered for services, and one-stops are not required to register customers who participate in self-service or informational activities. The performance measurement system may result in customers being denied services because local areas may be reluctant to provide WIA-funded services to job seekers who may be less likely to find employment.