The Department of Labor oversees a number of employment and training programs administered by state and local workforce boards and one-stop career centers established under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). The green jobs training programs Labor has overseen were created under the Green Jobs Act of 2007, which amended WIA. The Green Jobs Act of 2007 was passed as part of the Energy Independence which was intended to move the United and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),States toward greater energy independence and security and to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, among other objectives. This act directed the Secretary of Labor to work in consultation with the Secretary of Energy to create a new worker training program to prepare workers for careers in the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries. However, funds for these programs were not appropriated until the passage of the Recovery Act in 2009, according to Labor officials. The Recovery Act appropriated $500 million in funding for competitive green jobs grant programs at Labor. The current administration presented the green jobs training grant program as part of a broad national strategy both to create new jobs and to reform how Americans create and consume energy. Specifically, the administration articulated a vision for federal investments in renewable energy to involve coordination across a number of federal agencies to create new, well-paying jobs for Americans and to make such jobs available to all workers. The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) was responsible for overseeing the implementation of the green jobs training programs that were authorized in the Green Jobs Act of 2007 and funded through the Recovery Act. In June 2009, ETA announced a series of five Recovery Act grant competitions related to green jobs, three of which were primarily focused on training. All of these programs are scheduled to end before the end of July 2013. Table 1 describes these five programs and identifies the types of organizations eligible to receive each grant. Between September 2010 and October 2012, Labor’s OIG issued a series of three reports related to the department’s Recovery Act green jobs programs, including training programs. The most recent report raised questions about the low job placement and retention of trained program participants, the short amount of time for which many participants received training, and limitations of available employment and retention data, among other things. Labor has used a broad framework to define green jobs, incorporating various elements that have emerged over time as the understanding of what constitutes a green job has evolved. As part of the Green Jobs Act of 2007, WIA was amended to identify seven energy efficiency and renewable energy industries targeted for green jobs training funds. In addition, beginning in 2009, Labor issued information on 12 emerging green sectors as part of a broader effort to describe how the green economy was redefining traditional jobs and the skills required to carry Most recently, in 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics out those jobs.(BLS) released a two-part definition of green jobs that was used to count the number of jobs that could be considered green either because what the work produced or how the work was performed benefitted the environment.time to define green jobs. According to funding information provided by Labor and our survey of Labor’s directly-funded green jobs efforts, most funding for green jobs efforts at Labor has been directed toward programs designed to train individuals for green jobs, with less funding supporting efforts with other objectives, such as data collection or information materials. Indeed, approximately $501 million (84 percent) of the $595 million identified by offices at Labor as having been appropriated or allocated specifically for green jobs activities since 2009 went toward efforts with training and support services as their primary objective.million, or 12 percent of the total amount of funding for green jobs In total, approximately $73 activities, was reported appropriated or allocated for data collection and reporting efforts. Most of the funding for green jobs efforts was provided through the Recovery Act, which funded both training and non-training-focused projects at Labor in part to increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources nationwide. In addition to Recovery Act funding for green jobs efforts, funding information provided by Labor and through our survey of directly-funded green jobs efforts indicate that Labor has allocated at least an additional $89 million since 2009 to support seven other green jobs efforts that have been implemented by five of Labor’s offices (see fig. 2). For a brief description of each of Labor’s green jobs efforts for which funds were appropriated or allocated, see appendix II. The Recovery Act directed federal agencies to spend the funds it made available quickly and prudently, and Labor implemented a number of relatively brief but high-investment green jobs efforts simultaneously. As a result, in some cases, Recovery Act training programs were initiated prior to a full assessment of the demand for green jobs. Specifically, Recovery Act-funded green jobs training grantees designed and began to implement their green jobs training programs at the same time states were developing green job definitions and beginning to collect workforce and labor market information on the prevalence and likely growth of green jobs through the State Labor Market Information Improvement grants, which were also funded with Recovery Act funds. Furthermore, BLS launched its Green Jobs initiative—which included various surveys designed to help define and measure the prevalence of green jobs—after many green jobs training programs had begun. ETA officials noted that BLS’s development of the definition of green jobs was a deliberative and extensive process that required consulting stakeholders and the public. They also said that BLS’s timeline for defining green jobs differed from ETA’s timeline for awarding and executing grants, which was driven by Recovery Act mandates. Labor has made subsequent investments that build upon lessons learned through the Recovery Act grant programs. For example, ETA initiated the $38 million GJIF program in 2011 to support job training opportunities for workers in green industry sectors and occupations. In developing the GJIF grant program, ETA considered lessons learned through the Recovery Act grant programs. For example, various stakeholders including employers, the public workforce system, federal agencies, and foundations identified Registered Apprenticeship—training that combines job related technical instruction with structured on-the-job learning experiences for skilled trades and allows participants to earn wages—as a valuable workforce strategy. ETA acknowledged that upgrading basic skills, including literacy and math, is critical to ensure job placement and suggested that training participants exclusively in green skills is not always sufficient. Consequently, ETA required GJIF grantees to implement green jobs training programs that would either forge linkages between Registered Apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs or deliver integrated basic skills and occupational training through community-based organizations. Figure 3 shows a timeline illustrating the rollout of selected green jobs grants at Labor and the time periods during as well as the timing of BLS’s efforts to which these grants were active,collect data on green jobs. With the exception of the GJIF grants, all of these efforts will have been completed by July 2013. Grantees from all but six states received at least one of the 103 green jobs training grants that were awarded by ETA,, but grantees were somewhat concentrated within certain regions of the country. Specifically, most states with three or more grantees were located in the Northeast, West, or Midwest regions of the country. Four states and the District of Columbia received five or more green jobs training grants: California, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania. Figure 4 shows the number of green jobs training grants awarded by state. In terms of organizational type, most green jobs training grants were awarded to nonprofit organizations and state workforce agencies (see fig. 5). Specifically, 44 percent of green jobs training grants were awarded to nonprofit organizations and 34 percent were awarded to state governmental agencies or departments. In addition, 10 percent of grantees were organized labor or labor management organizations. ETA officials from all six of its regional offices said that in terms of organizational type, green jobs training grantees did not differ substantially from the types of grantees ETA typically oversees. ETA officials said building partnerships had been an important focus of the green jobs grants, and indeed ETA’s grant solicitations required, or in some cases encouraged, grant recipients, regardless of organizational type, to develop partnerships with various stakeholders, such as representatives of the workforce system, industry groups, employers, unions, the education and training community, nonprofits, or community- based organizations. Staff from ETA’s regional offices said that some grantees developed new and successful partnerships as a result of the grants, including partnerships with labor unions. More than half of ETA’s green jobs training grantees implemented their grants through sub-grantees, or a network of local affiliates, rather than providing training services directly to participants. Grantees that contract with sub-grantees or local affiliates to provide services are responsible for monitoring and overseeing how all grant funds are used, effectively delegating day-to-day oversight responsibility from Labor to the primary grantee. In addition to Labor’s direct investments in green jobs, several offices at Labor have infused green elements into their ongoing activities even though funds were not specifically appropriated or allocated for these green jobs efforts. In total, of the 14 Labor offices we surveyed, 6 identified and implemented 48 such efforts (for a list of the efforts, see appendix III). Some of these offices added a “layer of green” to existing training programs or other activities. For example, according to material provided by Labor, most YouthBuild programs have incorporated green building into their construction training. Other efforts focused on providing information materials, forming partnerships, or conducting publicity and outreach, among other things. For example, the Women’s Bureau created a guide on sustainable careers for women and Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration contributed to an Environmental Protection Agency publication on best practices for improving indoor air quality during home energy upgrades. Further, in 2010 the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships hosted a roundtable discussion about green jobs between the Secretary of Labor and leaders from national foundations and discussed how to create employment opportunities for low-income populations in the green jobs industry. Although funding for green jobs efforts at Labor has shifted and green jobs efforts funded through the Recovery Act are winding down, a few of Labor’s ongoing programs or efforts continue to emphasize green jobs or skills, and Labor continues to incorporate green elements into existing programs by coordinating internally on an as-needed basis. After the passage of the Recovery Act, a number of Labor’s offices worked together to implement the requirements of the act, and Labor officials said that they collaborated on green jobs efforts on a fairly regular basis and that more formal green jobs meetings across the department were common. For those green jobs efforts where green elements have been infused into ongoing activities even though funds were not specifically appropriated or allocated for green jobs efforts, offices at Labor indicated through our survey that they continue to coordinate on such efforts within Labor and across other federal agencies, albeit in a less formal manner. For example, according to our survey of these indirectly-funded green jobs efforts, for 37 of 46 of the efforts listed in appendix III, offices said that they coordinated with others at Labor, and for 30 of 46 of the efforts, In addition, it is they reported coordinating with other federal agencies.likely that coordination on green jobs efforts will continue to occur on an ad-hoc basis, especially as funding and priorities within the department shift. For example, Labor recently reported that due to federal budget cuts, BLS has discontinued its reporting on employment in green jobs. According to a Labor official, after the Recovery Act was passed, Labor collaborated with other departments, such as the Department of Energy (Energy) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to foster job growth for a new green economy. For example, Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration worked with Energy on retrofitting and safety activities, and Labor also partnered with HUD to provide green jobs training and possible employment opportunities to public housing residents. In addition, Labor entered into various Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) after the Recovery Act was passed to collaborate on green jobs-related issues with other federal agencies. For example, the Secretaries of Energy, Labor, and the Department of Education announced a collaboration to connect jobs to training programs and career pathways and to make cross-agency communication a priority. While these examples highlight coordination on green jobs efforts after the passage of the Recovery Act, little is known about the effectiveness of these efforts. To identify the potential demand for green jobs in their communities, all (11 of 11) grantees we interviewed had broadly interpreted Labor’s green jobs definitional framework to include as green any job that could be linked, directly or indirectly, to a beneficial environmental outcome. While Labor created its framework to provide local flexibility, the wide variation in the types of green jobs obtained by program participants illustrates just how broadly Labor’s definition can be interpreted and raises questions about what constitutes a green job—especially in cases where the job essentially takes the form of a more traditional job (see table 2). In general, grantees we interviewed considered jobs green if they could link the job to (1) a green industry, (2) the production or installation of goods that benefit the environment, (3) the performance of services that potentially lead to environmental benefits, or (4) environmentally beneficial work processes. For example, in some cases, grantees we interviewed considered jobs green because they were linked to the renewable energy industry, such as solar panel installation or sales. Grantees considered other jobs green because the goods being produced benefited the environment, such as the pouring of concrete for a wind turbine or the installation of energy efficient appliances. In some cases the green job was service-based, such as an energy auditor or energy surveyor. Finally, other grantees considered jobs green because of the environmentally beneficial processes being used, such as applying paint in an efficient manner or using advanced manufacturing techniques that reduce waste. Even for jobs where parts of the work have a link to environmentally beneficial outcomes, workers may only use green skills or practices for a portion of the time they work. For instance, technicians trained to install and repair high-efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems may in the course of their work also install less energy efficient equipment. All grantees we interviewed said they had worked closely with local employers to align their training program with the green skills needs of local employers. All agreed developing effective relationships with employers was crucial to aligning any training program with available jobs. Labor’s three Recovery Act green jobs training programs, as well as the GJIF program, all required applicants to demonstrate how they would partner with local employers to develop and implement their training programs. Most (9) grantees told us they had assembled advisory boards consisting of representatives from local businesses and industry associations to help inform them about available green jobs and the skills that would most likely be in demand by local employers. Further, all grantees said they engaged in ongoing communication with employers to stay abreast of changes in the local economy and employer needs, and most (10) made changes to their program curricula or tailored their training in response to employer input. Labor’s data show that green jobs training grantees primarily offered training in the construction and manufacturing industries. Specifically, nearly half of all participants of the Recovery Act-funded green jobs training programs received training focused on construction, and approximately 15 percent received training in manufacturing. Over 5 percent of participants in those programs received training in other industries that included utilities, transportation, and warehousing. Grantees in Labor’s newer GJIF program focused even more heavily on construction—approximately 94 percent of participants were trained in construction and around 3 percent in manufacturing. Most grantees (9) we spoke to had infused green elements into existing training curricula for more traditional skills. However, the extent to which the training focused on green versus traditional skills varied across programs and often depended upon the skill level of targeted participants. Most (7) of the programs we visited generally targeted relatively low- skilled individuals with limited work experience and were designed to teach participants the foundational skills they would need to pursue a career in a skilled trade in which green skills and materials can be used. For example, those programs typically used their green job grant funds to incorporate green skills into existing construction, carpentry, heating/air- conditioning, plumbing, or electricity programs. The programs generally involved a mixture of classroom and hands-on training and taught traditional skills, such as how to read blueprints, use tools, install and service appliances, and frame buildings. In teaching these skills, however, instructors also showed students the way the processes or products used in performing these tasks could lead to environmentally beneficial outcomes. For example, participants were taught various ways to weatherize a building to conserve energy, to efficiently operate heavy machines to save fuel, or to install solar panels as part of a green construction project. In contrast, two programs we visited focused more exclusively on short- term green skills training to supplement the existing traditional skills of relatively higher-skilled unemployed workers. For example, one green awareness program taught participants to identify ways to perform their work, such as manufacturing, in a more environmentally beneficial manner, often by identifying and reducing waste. Another program added a component to their comprehensive electrical training program to train unemployed registered electricians how to install and maintain advanced energy efficient lighting systems. The grantees associated with both of these programs, as well as other grantees, noted that employer demand for workers with green skills may sometimes be most effectively met through short-term training of higher-skilled unemployed workers or incumbent workers. The overall impact of Labor’s green jobs training programs remains largely uncertain partly because some individuals are still participating in training and are not expected to have outcomes yet, and because final outcome data are submitted to Labor approximately 3 months after the grant period ends. The most recent performance outcome data for the three Recovery Act-funded and GJIF green jobs grants are as of December 31, 2012, at which time approximately 60 percent of the Recovery Act-funded programs had ended and grantees had submitted final performance outcome data. According to Labor officials, complete outcome data for the remaining Recovery Act-funded green jobs grantees will likely not be available until October 2013 because many grants were extended to June 2013. They also said that final performance outcome data for the GJIF grant—which is scheduled to end in June 2014—will likely not be available until October 2014. Our analysis of data reported by Recovery Act-funded green jobs grantees with final outcome data shows that these grantees collectively reported enrolling and training more participants than they had proposed when setting their outcome targets. However, their placement of program participants into employment lagged in comparison—these grantees reported placing 55 percent of the projected number of participants into jobs. When final data become available for the remaining 40 percent of grantees, the final figure comparing reported employment outcomes to proposed targets may change.employment outcomes will compare to their projected targets, and whether the employment outcomes of this program will benefit either from economic changes or lessons learned since the Recovery Act programs began. Moreover, it remains to be seen how GJIF grantees’ Developing a complete and accurate assessment of Labor’s green jobs training programs is further challenged by the potential unreliability of certain outcome data—particularly for placement into training-related employment. In its October 2012 report, Labor’s OIG questioned the reliability of the Recovery Act green jobs training programs’ employment and retention outcome data because a significant proportion of sampled data for employment and retention outcomes were not adequately supported by grantee documentation. We reviewed the OIG’s data review process and found it appropriate for assessing reliability and therefore also consider the data unreliable for evaluating program While outcome data for the ongoing GJIF program are still performance.being reported and the OIG did not assess the reliability of this program’s data, Labor’s method for collecting these data remains largely unchanged from that used for the Recovery Act-funded green jobs training programs. Consequently, these outcome data—particularly for placement into training-related employment—could also be questionable. Labor officials noted that they have been collecting additional information on employment outcomes and wages using state unemployment insurance (UI) wage record data on program participants, and will continue to do so into early 2015 for the GJIF program. Results of their most recent analyses of UI data showed that, of the participants who had exited at least one of the three Recovery Act-funded green jobs training programs between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2012, 52 percent had Similar analyses provided by Labor showed that, obtained employment.of participants who had exited between October 1, 2010, and September 30, 2011, 83 percent of those who had become employed had retained their employment for at least 6 months and had average earnings of around $25,000 for the 6 month period. Results of Labor’s analysis of UI wage data for participants of the GJIF program shows that 40 percent of participants who had exited between April 1, 2011, and March 31, 2012, had entered employment. However, the UI data do not capture whether jobs obtained were training-related for either the Recovery Act-funded or GJIF programs, so, absent additional relevant information, the extent to which grantees placed participants into training-related employment may never be reliably known. According to Labor officials, once complete, these additional UI wage data may provide more definitive information on the extent to which program participants entered employment and will be used by the department to develop a broader picture of the grant programs’ level of success in achieving employment outcomes. Specifically, Labor officials said that while there is not a formal process to study the UI data, program staff routinely examine these data to identify lessons learned and best practices that could be applied to future grant programs. Labor officials said the data could be used to compare the green jobs training programs against other training programs across the agency, such as those under WIA, if resources permit. While Labor officials consider the UI data to be more definitive than the grantee-reported job placement data to measure overall program outcomes once the grant period ends, they stressed the importance of having real-time data to monitor grantee performance during implementation. While the UI wage record data provide an alternative source of information on job placement outcomes, due to a 9-month lag time, these data are of limited usefulness regarding program management. Specifically, because of the time lag, grantees could not use these data to monitor their progress toward meeting program goals in real-time. Further, Labor could not use the data to hold grantees accountable for meeting grant goals, as all grant periods will have ended before the data are complete. Consequently, ensuring the reliability of grantee reported outcome data remains vitally important, particularly for grant programs whose primary objective is to prepare workers for attaining employment in a targeted emerging industry. The grantees we interviewed were generally positive about Labor’s green jobs training programs, with most speaking optimistically about the potential value of the green skills obtained by the program participants. Most grantees we met with said that they believe there to be a continued national movement towards lowering energy usage—whether due to economic, policy, or cultural changes—and all projected that the demand for workers with green skills credentials will continue to rise. All (11 of 11) were of the opinion that possessing green skills in addition to more traditional skills provides workers with an advantage as they seek a new job or move along a career pathway, and most (10) cited the need for training programs that provide nationally or industry-recognized green credentials. Two noted that having multiple credentials was particularly valuable. Lastly, some (5) grantees mentioned that the benefits of the green jobs training, like most job training, may not become apparent immediately, but may often be realized later during the worker’s career, especially as demand for green skills grows. However, all grantees noted there have been challenges associated with developing and implementing Labor’s green jobs training programs. For example, most (8) of the grantees we interviewed said that the lack of credible green jobs labor market information had limited their ability to identify or predict the level of available green jobs or the demand for green skills in their local area. Although state workforce agencies received funding to conduct green jobs labor market information studies under the State Labor Market Information Improvement grants, most resulting data were issued after many Recovery Act training programs had already begun. In addition, the BLS surveys were released from March 2012 through March 2013, after GJIF grantees had submitted their applications outlining their training programs to Labor. Having access to the final results of the state labor market information studies could have provided Recovery Act grantees with additional insights into their state’s economic activity in the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries, as well as jobs within those industries when they were developing their training programs. Similarly, BLS survey results could have provided GJIF grantees with a national snapshot of establishments that produce green goods and services and the jobs of workers involved in green activities, among other information, and may have provided grantees with additional context for the development and implementation of their green jobs training programs. Labor officials said the rapidly evolving nature of the green industries has resulted in multiple changes to employer green job demand information over the course of the grant periods, further complicating their attempts to provide labor market information for this sector. In addition, most (9) grantees we met with said Labor’s green jobs training grants did not afford them enough time to both develop local partnerships and recruit, train, and place program participants. All grantees said developing partnerships can be especially time-consuming if such partnerships had not existed prior to the grant award.noted that given how important local partnerships are to developing successful training programs, training programs that require such partnerships should have longer grant periods than those afforded by the Recovery Act and GJIF programs. Most (9) Furthermore, most (8) grantees mentioned how developing and implementing a relatively new type of training, like green skills, can require additional time in order to fill knowledge gaps among employers. This may be especially true in light of changing state and local energy policies. For example, according to the Department of Energy, as of March 2013, 29 states have established standards aimed at generating a certain percentage of the state’s energy using renewable sources by a specified year. Furthermore, many municipalities throughout the country are requiring that local construction projects adhere to environmentally friendly requirements. However, most (9) grantees we spoke with said some employers may not recognize how changing policies will affect their businesses. In fact, they believe this lack of understanding may be limiting demand for workers trained in green skills. To address this problem, one of the grantees we interviewed had developed a 1-day training program for local business managers to educate them about how they could benefit from the green skills that participants were obtaining through the organization’s training program. Most (6) grantees said at times during the implementation of their green jobs training program, they were, in effect, attempting to simultaneously drive both supply and demand for workers with green skills, which took considerable time and effort. In addition, although all grantees we interviewed had engaged with employers who had committed their support for the training curriculum, they also said this did not always translate into green jobs for program participants. Above all, most (9) pointed to the slow economic recovery as the reason their predictions—and those made by employers—regarding green job growth were not fully realized. For example, one grantee explained how the local housing market had not recovered as quickly as anticipated, and as a result, demand for workers with green skills—such as green construction techniques, weatherization practices, and the installation of energy efficient appliances—has been sluggish. In addition, most (10) grantees explained that because green skills are often intertwined with traditional skills training and the skilled labor industries, their programs’ participants were negatively affected by the overall poor economy. For example, most grantees (9) noted how their program participants, despite their additional layer of green skills training, found themselves competing with a high number of unemployed workers who were also seeking to regain employment in more traditional jobs such as carpentry or electrical work. Most (9) grantees also noted that renewable energy sectors, such as solar power, have not grown in their regions as was predicted several years ago. Lastly, most (7) grantees we interviewed said it is difficult to accurately measure the value of green skills training in terms of green job placement. In general, they said this is partly because, unlike jobs in other growing industries, like health care, there are few distinctly green jobs. One grantee we met with said she believes the term “green job” is misleading, and complicates program implementation. This grant official said that funding should be directed toward supplementing traditional skills training with green skills that can be used on any job rather than on preparing workers for specific jobs identified as green. Based on our interviews with grantees of Labor’s green jobs training programs, and the descriptions of their experiences implementing those programs, we identified several lessons learned that may warrant consideration when implementing similar targeted grant programs for other emerging industries (see table 3). Labor has provided all green jobs grantees with technical assistance to help them implement their grant programs and comply with relevant federal laws and regulations. For example, Labor officials have hosted technical assistance webinars on topics such as financial management and how to engage employers. Labor also maintains a website for each green jobs training grant program and a green jobs community of practice on its online platform, Workforce3One. In addition, Labor has published bimonthly digests for Recovery Act grantees since January 2011 that highlight new technical assistance materials and other grant-related information. Finally, Labor has compiled and periodically updated a technical assistance guide that briefly describes and provides hyperlinks for its technical assistance resources, including webinar recordings and promising practices. Several grantees we interviewed (4 of 11) reported participating in webinars and referring to technical assistance materials posted to Workforce3One. In addition, ETA has funded three separate studies to assess the implementation of selected green jobs programs funded by the Recovery Act. Specifically, Labor funded a 2-year implementation evaluation that examined the implementation of the three Recovery Act-funded green jobs training programs and issued both interim and final reports. , Labor also funded an evaluation of the State Labor Market Information Improvement grants and issued a final report and additional related products in 2013. Finally, Labor has funded an ongoing impact evaluation scheduled to be completed in 2016. This study was designed to test the extent to which selected grantees of one of the four green-jobs training programs overseen by ETA—Pathways Out of Poverty— improved worker outcomes by imparting skills and training valued in the labor market. To support its technical assistance efforts to grantees, Labor entered into a grant agreement with the National Governors Association, which together with two partner organizations formed a Technical Assistance Partnership (TA Partnership). In conjunction with Labor officials, the TA Partnership has facilitated monthly conference calls for each grant program so grantees can learn from their peers and receive program- specific technical assistance. The TA Partnership has also compiled and updated reports that highlight promising practices grantees have implemented. Finally, the TA Partnership and Labor officials have held annual grantee conferences, which have covered various topics including strategies to retain and place program participants and the importance of nationally recognized credentials. Several (4 of 11) grantees we interviewed mentioned participating in the monthly conference calls and annual conferences and said that generally they had been helpful. While Labor provided guidance and technical assistance on how to document eligibility for the green jobs training programs, it provided little guidance on what documentation grantees were expected to maintain regarding program outcomes, particularly with respect to job placement. Specifically, while Labor provided guidance on how to report required performance data into its Recovery Act Database, this guidance does not specify what documentation, if any, grantees were to maintain for reported job placements, including those considered training-related. Our Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government provides that internal control and all transactions and other significant events should be clearly documented and readily available for examination. However, in its last green jobs report, the OIG found that nearly a quarter of reported outcomes were not supported by adequate documentation. One regional official noted that sub-grantees may not have known what documentation was required and staff in another office said that in some cases primary grantees may not have done enough to ensure that the sub-grantees they were responsible for overseeing understood documentation requirements. While Labor officials have not issued additional guidance to GJIF grantees regarding how to document job placement and retention outcomes, they said they have taken other steps that address the OIG’s recommendation to improve the quality of grantee reported performance data and utilize lessons learned from Recovery Act-funded green jobs training programs for other discretionary grant programs. First, ETA officials noted that they have formed an internal workgroup focused on improving the technical assistance provided to ETA’s discretionary grantees about how to report program outcomes. This group hopes to issue recommendations in September 2013, and ETA officials believe these recommendations will help improve grant application instructions, and help ETA refine their reporting systems, among other things. Second, ETA officials told us that they had initiated a grant re-engineering project in August 2012 to identify common grant management challenges and develop strategies for addressing such challenges. For instance, the group has discussed ways to improve ETA’s grant solicitation process, such as by including clearer expectations and benchmarks for performance in its solicitations for grant applications and by taking steps to ensure greater comparability of goals across grantees. Labor hopes to begin implementing the group’s recommendations for new discretionary grant programs in August 2013. ETA monitors most grants, including its green jobs training grants, through a risk-based strategy that prioritizes monitoring activities based upon grantees’ assessed risk-levels and availability of resources, among other factors, and is described in its Core Monitoring Guide. Specifically, according to officials from all six of ETA’s regional offices, ETA’s federal project officers monitor grantees as part of their ongoing duties, which include calling grantees to offer technical assistance. In addition, ETA’s federal project officers perform quarterly desk reviews, during which they review financial reports and quarterly performance reports that grantees are required to submit. For the green jobs training grants, these reports include information such as the total amount of grant funds spent, the number of participants who began or completed training, a timeline for grant activities and deliverables, grantee accomplishments, and technical assistance needs. During these quarterly reviews, federal project officers compare grantees’ reported performance outcomes and spending rates to those goals set by grantees in their grant proposals. Based upon their review of each grantee’s reported information, federal project officers enter information about each grantee into Labor’s Grant Electronic Management System (GEMS), which assesses risk and generates a risk level for each grantee. The GEMS assessment of each grantee’s risk level is then used by Labor to develop its risk-based monitoring strategy, which involves prioritizing site visits based on grantees’ assessed risk-levels and availability of resources, among other factors. According to regional officials from all six offices, nearly all green jobs training grantees received at least one on-site monitoring visit, typically about halfway through the period of performance. During these site visits, federal project officers assessed grantees’ management and performance and documented any noncompliance findings and requirements for corrective action, as necessary. For example, Labor’s site visit guide includes questions for federal project officers to consider about financial and performance data reporting systems and performance outcomes. As a result of its on-site monitoring activities, Labor officials identified and required certain grantees to correct a variety of issues concerning the management of their grants. Many monitoring reports for the Recovery Act-funded green jobs training grants indicated that grantees were not on track to meet their performance outcomes. In such cases Labor required grantees to submit written corrective action plans that described what strategies they would undertake to increase project outcomes and how they would ensure that remaining funds would be used in a timely way to accomplish project objectives. Labor officials said that grantees have made significant progress toward attaining their goals for beginning and completing training as a result of both the grantees’ own efforts and ETA’s technical assistance and monitoring efforts. These officials also stressed that while ETA holds grantees accountable to adhering to their grant statements of work, grantees are not contractually obligated to meet performance outcomes.Unlike contracts or WIA-funded programs, which can impose sanctions for failing to meet projected targets, the accountability mechanisms for these green jobs grant programs were more limited. For example, ETA officials said that if a grantee does not achieve its placement outcomes, this can affect whether the grantee receives a period of performance extension for the current grant or, potentially, a future grant from ETA. Officials said that they had not withdrawn funding from any grantees for failing to meet performance targets for any of the four green jobs training programs. However, in some cases ETA officials decided not to grant extension requests for grantees reporting poor performance. As a result, some grant funds remained unexpended and will be returned to the Treasury, as required. In addition to insufficient progress toward targeted outcomes, the monitoring reports of the Recovery Act-funded green jobs training grantees identified other noncompliance findings, including insufficient monitoring of sub-grantees. For example, a number of monitoring reports indicated that primary grantees had not sufficiently monitored their sub- grantees. These findings are notable given that such a large percentage of grantees implemented their programs through a network of sub- grantees. Both GAO and the Department of Justice’s OIG have stressed the importance of sufficient sub-recipient monitoring to the grant oversight process. Other noncompliance findings included grantees lacking adequate documentation to show program participants were eligible for services or grantees having failed to follow acceptable procurement processes. According to officials from all six regional offices, federal project officers did not identify any instances of fraud, waste, or abuse during their on-site monitoring visits. The Recovery Act funded multiple, substantial investments in training programs targeted to a specific emerging industry—energy efficiency and renewable energy. Most of these programs have already ended or are currently winding down, although a few of Labor’s continuing programs, such as YouthBuild, have incorporated many green elements since 2009, and the Green Job Innovation Fund program is scheduled to remain active through June of 2014. Despite the sizeable investment in green jobs, the green jobs training programs have faced a number of implementation challenges and final outcomes remain uncertain, particularly regarding placement into green jobs. A number of these challenges have stemmed from the need to implement the grants quickly and simultaneously before green jobs had been defined and more had been learned about the demand for green skills. Others, such as problems with the reliability of outcome data, can be traced to management issues that have compromised Labor’s ability to measure the program’s success, particularly regarding placing participants into training-related employment. Specifically, because Labor did not establish clear and timely guidelines for how to document green job placement outcomes, Labor is not able to assess the extent to which the targeted green jobs training programs placed participants in employment related to the training they received. The challenges for an emerging industry such as energy efficiency and renewable energy are substantial. Uncertainty and debate still surround the question of what constitutes a green job. Under Labor’s current framework, almost any job can be considered green if a link between the employee’s tasks and environmental benefits can be made. Indeed, most grantee officials we interviewed said that most green jobs they have trained participants for are primarily traditional skilled-trades jobs, such as carpentry or electrical work. Many have been termed “green” because the worker has been trained to be mindful of energy use and reduce waste, or has been placed where the worker’s tasks resulted in a product or service that benefited the environment, such as a light-rail construction site. Such an approach provides certain benefits within the context of an emerging industry, in that many of the skills workers obtain can be transferred to traditional jobs in cases where local demand for green jobs falls below expectations. It also may serve to raise general worker awareness about energy efficiency and waste reduction, to the benefit of the employer or nation. Nonetheless, this emphasis on training that often takes the form of traditional skills training with an added layer of green may not fully align with the intent of the targeted training funds. By funding several evaluations of green jobs training and labor market information programs, Labor has positioned itself to build upon lessons learned through implementing these individual programs. A fundamental consideration is whether it is prudent to implement job training programs for an emerging industry before more is known about the demand for skills and workers. Another consideration is whether it would be more or less effective for federally-funded training programs to focus on providing valuable green skills and credentials applicable on a wide variety of jobs, rather than to devote considerable attention to what is defined as a green job. Even though Labor is scaling back its own green jobs efforts, energy efficiency and renewable energy will likely remain a national priority. Labor has established a green jobs community of practice on its online platform, Workforce3One, which, if maintained and used, can continue to facilitate information-sharing among grantees and workforce professionals regarding what green skills and credentials employers in their communities value most. In addition, the substantial investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy made through these grant programs also provides Labor an opportunity to identify broader lessons learned about the challenges and benefits associated with offering targeted training in an emerging industry, which could help inform the development of training for other emerging industries in the future. Without the benefit of such lessons learned and a continued focus on what is needed to address emerging industries, state and local workforce entities may grapple with similar challenges in the future. To enhance Labor’s ability to implement training programs in emerging industries, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Labor identify lessons learned from implementing the green jobs training programs. This could include: Identifying challenges and promising strategies associated with training workers for emerging industries—through both targeted grant programs and existing programs—and considering ways to improve such efforts in the future. For example, taking a more measured or multi-phased approach could allow the time necessary to better determine demand for an emerging industry and establish the partnerships needed to properly align training with available jobs. Taking steps to ensure training programs adequately document outcome variables, particularly for targeted programs where tracking training relatedness is of particular interest. We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor. Labor provided a written response (see app. IV). Labor agreed with our recommendation. Specifically, Labor’s response noted that the department has already begun assessing lessons learned from the implementation of its green jobs grants. Labor also cited efforts to compile lessons learned to inform the design and implementation of future grant initiatives, including new approaches to capture program outcomes. Labor agreed that documenting outcomes is important and said it will work to provide technical assistance to ensure grantees adequately document outcomes. Finally, Labor noted the department will continue to collect information on employment outcomes and wages and will analyze these data once they are complete to provide a more definitive and final picture of the extent to which former green jobs training participants entered and retained employment. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Labor, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. Our objectives were to determine: (1) what is known about the objectives and coordination of the Department of Labor’s (Labor) green jobs efforts, (2) what type of green jobs training grantees provided and how selected grantees aligned their training to meet employers’ green jobs needs, (3) what is known about program outcomes and what challenges, if any, grantees faced in implementing their programs, and (4) what Labor has done to assist and monitor its green jobs grantees. To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and departmental guidance and procedures. We also created a data collection instrument and two questionnaires to obtain information from Labor officials. In addition, we analyzed data from Labor and interviewed selected grantees by phone or in person in five states—California, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania—as well as Labor officials. We conducted this performance audit from May 2012 through June 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Our data collection strategy for obtaining information on green jobs efforts across Labor consisted of two phases. First, we created a data collection instrument to obtain information on green jobs efforts across Labor. In the data collection instrument, we asked offices at Labor to list two separate sets of efforts: (1) efforts where federal funds were appropriated or allocated specifically for green jobs activities and (2) efforts where federal funds were not specifically appropriated or allocated for green jobs activities, but where the office sought to incorporate green elements into either an existing program or ongoing activity. We distributed the data collection instrument to 14 of Labor’s 28 offices: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Women’s Bureau (WB), Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Veterans’ Employment and Training Services (VETS), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy (OASP), Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (CFBNP), Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), Wage and Hour Division (WHD), Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), and the Office of Public Affairs (OPA). These 14 offices were selected based on the likelihood of their administering a green jobs effort or program. For example, we did not distribute the data collection instrument to Labor’s Office of Inspector General, Office of the Solicitor, or Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Second, we used the information we collected on the two separate sets of green jobs efforts in the data collection instruments to inform two follow- up questionnaires. For the first set of green jobs efforts, offices at Labor initially identified 16 efforts where funds were specifically appropriated or allocated for green-job related activities. For each of the 16 efforts, we sent a questionnaire by e-mail. The questionnaire focused on (1) the goals and objectives of the green jobs efforts, (2) how green jobs were defined for each of the efforts, (3) whether offices coordinated with others on these efforts, and (4) funding levels for each of the efforts. We pre- tested the questionnaire with two respondents from OSHA in December and made revisions. We then sent the questionnaires out on a rolling basis between January 16 and February 22, 2013. We determined 2 of the 16 efforts to be out of scope. Of the remaining 14 directly-funded green jobs efforts across five offices (OSHA, ETA, VETS, ILAB, and BLS), we received completed questionnaires for 13 and one partially completed questionnaire by April 3, 2013. We also identified 3 additional directly-funded efforts, for a total of 17 efforts. For the second set of green jobs efforts, offices at Labor initially identified 54 efforts where funds were not specifically appropriated or allocated for green jobs efforts, but green elements were incorporated into existing programs or ongoing activities. We identified two additional green efforts that fall under this category. We sent a brief questionnaire consisting of two questions by e-mail in an attached Microsoft Word form. The two questions included in the questionnaire were pre-tested as part of the more detailed survey mentioned above. All questionnaires were sent on January 29, 2013, or on February 22, 2013. We determined 10 of the 56 efforts to be out of scope. Of the remaining 46 efforts across six offices (OSHA, WB, ETA, VETS, ILAB, and CFBNP), we received completed questionnaires for all 46 efforts by March 21, 2013. Labor later identified 2 additional efforts, for a total of 48 efforts. Because the majority of Recovery Act funding for green jobs efforts were directed toward training programs, we focused much of our review on four grant programs—the three training- focused green jobs training programs funded by the Recovery Act (Energy Training Partnership grants, Pathways Out of Poverty grants, and State Energy Sector Partnership and Training grants) as well as the newer Green Jobs Innovation Fund. To report on the characteristics of Labor’s 103 green jobs training grantees, we obtained data from Labor on each training-focused green jobs grant administered by ETA. Specifically, we obtained information on the grantee’s location, organizational type, and whether or not the grantee had sub-grantees. To better understand the type of green jobs training grantees provided, how grantees aligned their training to meet green jobs needs, and what challenges, if any, they faced in implementing their programs, we analyzed data from Labor and interviewed 11 out of the 103 green jobs training grantees between August 2012 and April 2013. We conducted site visits in four states and interviewed grantees in two additional states by phone. We visited grantees in California, Illinois, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, and interviewed grantees in Connecticut and Louisiana by phone. We selected grantees in these states because these states had a relatively high number of Labor green jobs grant recipients, grantees in these states received GJIF grants, and the states varied in their geographic locations. We selected both Recovery Act- and GJIF- funded green jobs training grantees, but emphasized GJIF-funded grantees since unlike many of the Recovery Act programs, the GJIF program is still active. During each site visit we interviewed Labor’s green jobs training grant officials, training providers, local employers, and, to the extent possible, program participants. Similarly, during our phone calls we interviewed grant officials and in one case employers. During the interviews, we collected information about the types of green jobs training that were funded by Labor’s green jobs training grants and the outcomes of grantees’ programs, including the impact of the training with respect to green job placement, or otherwise. We specifically asked grantees about any challenges they may have encountered as they developed and implemented their program, including whether they experienced challenges with respect to placing participants into green jobs. In addition, we collected information on how local employers were involved in the development of the training programs and the green job opportunities they were able to offer program participants. We cannot generalize our findings beyond the interviews we conducted. To assess the reliability of Labor’s training type and outcome data, we (1) reviewed existing documentation related to the data sources, including Labor’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports, (2) electronically tested the data to identify obvious problems with completeness or accuracy, and (3) interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for limited purposes. For example, we determined that training type data were sufficiently reliable for purposes of reporting out on the industries for which grantees most frequently trained participants. We included information about the extent to which Recovery Act-funded green jobs training grantees collectively reported meeting their enrollment, training completion, and entered employment targets for those grantees for which final data were available as of December 31, 2012. However, based upon the OIG’s findings, we determined that the outcome data were not sufficiently reliable to determine the success of the programs. Finally, based upon the OIG’s findings, we determined that the data on the extent to which grantees entered training-related employment were not reliable enough to report, even compared to targeted levels. To describe Labor’s technical assistance efforts, we reviewed technical assistance guides and material posted to Workforce3One, interviewed Labor officials, and discussed Labor’s technical assistance with selected grantees. To describe and assess Labor’s monitoring efforts, we reviewed its Core Monitoring guide, interviewed Labor officials in Washington, D.C. and in each of ETA’s six regional offices—Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, and San Francisco—and obtained and reviewed copies of Labor’s monitoring reports for green jobs training grantees, including recipients of Energy Training Partnership, Pathways Out of Poverty, and State Energy Sector Partnership and Training grants. Energy Training Partnership (ETP) grants Through the Energy Training Partnership Grants, ETA awarded nearly $100 million to 25 projects. Grantees were to provide training and placement services in the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries to workers impacted by national energy and environmental policy, individuals in need of updated training related to the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries, and unemployed workers. Grantees were required to partner with labor organizations, employers and workforce investment boards. Grant awards ranged from approximately $1.4 to $5 million. In total, Pathways Out of Poverty grantees received approximately $150 million in Recovery Act funds. The grant aimed to help targeted populations find pathways out of poverty through employment in energy efficiency and renewable energy industries. Grants ranged from approximately $2 million to $8 million and were awarded to eight national nonprofit organizations with local affiliates and to 30 local public organizations or private nonprofit organizations. Through SESP, ETA awarded nearly $190 million to state workforce investment boards in partnership with state workforce agencies. The grants were designed to provide training, job placement, and related activities that reflect a comprehensive statewide energy sector strategy including the governor’s overall workforce vision, state energy policies, and training activities that lead to employment in targeted industry sectors. ETA made 34 awards that ranged from approximately $2 to $6 million each. Green Jobs Innovation Fund (GJIF) The Green Jobs Innovation Fund was authorized under the Workforce Investment Act to help workers receive job training in green industry sectors and occupations and access green career pathways. In total, $38 million in grant funds were awarded to six organizations with networks of local affiliates to develop green jobs training programs. These programs were required to incorporate green career pathways either by forging linkages between Registered Apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs or by integrating the delivery of technical and basic skills training through community-based partnerships. Job Corps is a residential job training program for at-risk youth. The Job Corps program aims to teach participants the skills they need to secure a meaningful job, continue their education, and be independent. Job Corps has instituted a number of measures in recent years to “green” its job training programs and facilities. Recovery Act funding was used to incorporate “green” training elements into the automotive, advanced manufacturing, and construction trades at Job Corps centers nationwide and to pilot three new “green” training programs at selected Job Corps centers: Solar Panel Installation, Weatherization, and SmartGrid technology. Targeted topic training grant in which applicants propose training based on the occupational safety and health topics chosen by OSHA. Alternative Energy Industry Hazards and Green Jobs Industry Hazards were included as topics in FY 2009 and FY 2010, respectively. Veterans’ Workforce Investment Program (VWIP) Reported description VWIP supports veterans’ employment and training services to help eligible veterans reintegrate into meaningful employment and to stimulate the development of effective and targeted service delivery systems. In FYs 2009 and 2010, project proposals received priority consideration if they supported “Green Energy Jobs” and proposed clear strategies for training and employment in the renewable energy economy. Reported description ETA awarded approximately $48.8 million in State Labor Market Information Improvement Grants to support the research and analysis of labor market data to assess economic activity in energy efficiency and renewable energy industries and identify occupations within those industries. Grant activities included collecting and disseminating labor market information, enhancing strategies to connect job seekers to green job banks, and helping ensure that workers find employment after completing training. ETA awarded 30 grants of between $763,000 and $4 million. This is a survey-based program, covering 120,000 business establishments, which provides a measure of national and state employment in industries that produce goods or provide services that benefit the environment. This program provides occupational employment and wage information for businesses that produce green goods and services. This is a special survey of business establishments designed to collect data on establishments’ use of green technologies and practices and the occupations of workers who spend more than half of their time involved in green technologies and practices. Green Career Information staff within the Employment Projections program produces career information on green jobs including wages, expected job prospects, what workers do on the job, working conditions, and necessary education, training, and credentials. Recovery Act green jobs grantees who were doing green jobs data collection and training in the states. These Recovery Act funds to O*NET were for the specific purpose of focusing occupational research and data collection on green jobs on an accelerated pace. The Technical Assistance Partnership led by the National Governor’s Association supported Recovery Act-funded green jobs grantees. Green Capacity Building Grants (GCBG) Reported description In total, ETA awarded $5 million in Recovery Act funds to training programs already funded by the Department of Labor to build their capacity to provide training in the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries. ETA awarded 62 of these grants, with awards ranging from $50,000 to $100,000. ETA used $5 million of the $500 million authorized for the Recovery Act green jobs grants for administrative expenses (salaries and expenses). This does not include any funds that were retained for technical assistance for these grants. Administrative expenses were in part used to fund three separate evaluations of Recovery Act green jobs programs: (1) a Labor Market Information evaluation, (2) a green jobs and health care implementation report, and (3) a 5-year impact evaluation. This guidance was funded by the Recovery Act and is a guidance document for R&D workers and employers in the nanotechnology field. Trilateral Roundtable: The Employment Dimension of the Transition to a Green Economy (February 3-4, 2011) The U.S. Department of Labor, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and the European Commission brought together U.S., Canadian, and European experts representing governments, trade unions, industry, and nongovernmental organizations to discuss the transition to the green economy. Discussions focused on defining and measuring green jobs, establishing effective green jobs partnerships, designing green skills development and training, ensuring green jobs serve as a pathway out of poverty, and examining the quality of green jobs, as well as the sustainability of green jobs investments by governments. Reported description In June 2009, Labor/ETA/OA published a report entitled, “The Greening of Registered Apprenticeship: An Environmental Scan of the Impact of Green Jobs on Registered Apprenticeship and Implications for Workforce Development.” More recently, as part of the 75th Anniversary of the National Apprenticeship Act in 2012, OA put out a call to sponsors across the county to collect Registered Apprenticeship Innovators or Trailblazers. This process identified a number of innovative programs across the country, including several specific examples of apprenticeship programs with a focus on green efforts. Labor officials participated in a technical review of economic research presented in “What Green Growth Means for Workers and Labour Market Policies: An Initial Assessment.” Subsequently the paper appeared as Chapter 4 in the 2012 OECD Employment Outlook. An OSHA website providing green job safety information on specific green jobs, such as green roofing, waste management, wind energy, recycling, weatherization, and geothermal industries. Provided safety information for weatherization jobs in collaboration with Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) OSHA worked with EPA in the publication of this guidance which identifies critical indoor environmental quality risks and worker assessment protocols, and provides guidance to address these issues. Through OSHA and The Joint Commission and Joint Commission Resources (JCR) Alliance, JCR developed an article that discusses the importance of adopting sustainable products and practices for cleaning, sanitizing, and disinfecting healthcare facilities. The article also provides requirements for selecting green cleaning products (January 2013). Publishing of a manual: Why Green Is Your Color: A Woman’s Guide to a Sustainable Career. Designed to assist women with job training and career development. A series of teleconferences for workforce practitioners about how to connect women with green jobs. A fact sheet accompanied each teleconference. Reported description In May 2010, the Deputy Director of CFBNP facilitated a partnership between OSHA’s Cincinnati office and East End Community Services in Dayton, OH – a Pathways Out of Poverty sub-grantee seeking a training module on safe handling of asbestos and lead removal as part of a green jobs training program. Interagency working groups (with Energy, Education, and HUD) Labor officials participated in the October 13-14, 2011 ELSAC meeting in Paris, France. One topic discussed at the meeting was the OECD’s green jobs project. Labor staff articulated labor and employment priorities to the U.S. interagency for inclusion in U.S. government positions for Rio+20, including for the U.S. position paper and during negotiations of the Rio outcome document. The two-day Symposium convened experts from 16 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation member economies and international organizations to discuss sustainable economic development policies. The event was hosted by the Department of Education, in partnership with Labor. US-Brazil Memorandum of Understanding on Labor Cooperation (March 20-21, 2012) U.S. Secretary of Labor and her counterpart from Brazil signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Labor Cooperation in May 2012. The memorandum highlights cooperation in the area of green jobs. The Women’s Bureau Director led a Labor delegation meeting with officials from Brazil’s Ministry of Environmental Affairs at U.S. EPA about the definition of green jobs, and initiatives in both countries. The October 2012 conference working group meetings considered green jobs in follow-up to the XVII IACML Declaration and Plan of Action adopted by the ministers of labor of the Americas in November 2011. The Plan of Action called for specific follow-up actions related to green jobs including, inter-alia, in-depth exchange of best practices in the region. DOL officials met with 47 women leaders from Sub-Saharan Africa under the African Growth and Opportunity Act’s African Women Entrepreneur Program, sharing best practices, perspectives and strategies to train and employ women in green jobs. Reported description Presentations by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health to general session, sharing of knowledge, development of informational products and participation in quarterly meetings. OSHA and Labor participated in an interagency Recovery through Retrofit Working Group comprised of over 80 technical staff members from the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor; Environmental Protection Agency; ,and USD that drafted standards for workers who will be involved in retrofitting homes to make them more energy efficient. The group met in Denver for a 3 days and a follow-up meeting was held in Washington D.C. This is the Vice President’s initiative. As a part of the working group, OSHA provided technical advice and input in the worker protection aspects of the standards that were drafted. Reported description On December 1, 2010, Secretary of Labor and Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training met with leaders from several national foundations to discuss significant investments in green jobs programs, as well as effective strategies that create employment and advancement opportunities for low- income populations in the green job industry. In 2012, the Director of CFBNP wrote a blog for Fatherhood.gov about an Employment and Training Administration’s grantee RecycleForce that provides green jobs to ex-offenders. Job Train’s “Earth Day Every Day Campaign” Held the week of April 19th-23rd, 2010, the campaign was designed “to raise environmental awareness among students and staff and serve as friendly reminders to be more energy efficient.” Labor staff briefed an official from the Chinese Embassy on Labor green jobs initiatives. Labor staff briefed the liaison on Labor green jobs efforts. Small Business Forum: “Green Jobs: Safety & Health Outlook for Workers and Small Employers” A forum on OSHA’s green jobs efforts and workplace hazards associated with green jobs. Presentation – “What You Need to Know About the Safe Use of Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF) Briefing on Spray Polyurethane Foam” OSHA Team attended as participating partner and Assistant Secretary spoke. OSHA co-chaired the topic, “OSH in Green Economy” for the conference on behalf of the United States. OSHA led the discussions and wrote the accompanying white paper. OSHA senior staff made presentations at conference on hazards of green jobs. Reported description OSHA personnel made presentations in Atlanta, GA; Los Angeles, CA; Philadelphia, PA; and Detroit, MI. OSHA participated in: The Employment Dimension of the Transition to a Green Economy”. The event brought together experts from government, trade unions, industry, and other stakeholders to exchange information, best practices, and ideas on preparing workers and employers to meet the increasingly complex skill demands of this transition. OSHA made a presentation on Green Jobs hazards. Roundtable has received presentations from CPWR, NIOSH and Department of Commerce on green jobs within the construction industry. First Annual Research Exchange on Advancing Patient, Worker and Environmental Safety and Sustainability in the Health Care Sector. OSHA presentation on focus on green jobs in relation to the healthcare industry. The audience was mainly healthcare workers, employers and researchers. Provides information to employers on practices to help keep workers safe when working with cleaning chemicals, including green cleaning products. The posters are available in English, Chinese, Tagalog and Spanish. The poster includes a section devoted to Green Cleaners. Topic: Making Green Jobs Good Jobs – We All Want To, So What is OSHA Doing to Make it Happen? Discussions at over 30 U.S. locations involving business and community leaders regarding emerging employment opportunities in green job fields. Posters, mobile marketing displays, postcards, flash drives. Reported description ETA designed the Green jobs CoP to serve as a platform for workforce professionals and green job thought leaders to discuss and share promising practices, to create partnerships for green job workforce solutions, and to leverage Recovery Act investments. Specifically, the Green Jobs CoP was designed to provide an interactive platform for providing technical assistance through webinars, discussion boards, blogs and other online resources to workforce professionals, particularly those at the state and workforce investment board levels as well as green jobs grantees (including recipients of upcoming Solicitation for Grant Applications). Reported description The YouthBuild program targets out-of-school youth ages 16 to 24 and provides them with an alternative education pathway to a high school diploma or GED. Most YouthBuild programs have incorporated green building into their construction training. As part of this training, participants learn about environmental issues that affect their communities and how they can provide leadership in this area. Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program The purpose of this program is to expedite the reintegration of homeless veterans into the labor force. These grants are intended to address two objectives: to provide services to assist in reintegrating homeless veterans into meaningful employment within the labor force, and to stimulate the development of effective service delivery systems that will address the complex problems facing homeless veterans. The programs’ technical assistance guide refers to collecting data on green jobs participants. Web-based training to help women find and succeed in green jobs. Pilot training projects designed to prepare women to enter high-growth, high- demand green jobs. In addition to the contact named above, Laura Heald, Assistant Director; Amy Buck, Meredith Moore, and David Perkins made significant contributions to all phases of the work. Also contributing to this report were James Bennett, David Chrisinger, Stanley Czerwinski, Beryl Davis, Andrea Dawson, Peter Del Toro, Alexander Galuten, Kathy Leslie, Sheila McCoy, Kim McGatlin, Jean McSween, Rhiannon Patterson, Karla Springer, Vanessa Taylor, and Mark Ward. Grants to State and Local Governments: An Overview of Funding Levels and Selected Challenges. GAO-12-1016. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2012. Renewable Energy: Federal Agencies Implement Hundreds of Initiatives. GAO-12-260. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2012. Workforce Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations between Workforce Boards and Employers Helped Meet Local Needs. GAO-12-97. Washington, D.C.: January 19, 2012. Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions. GAO-11-317. Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2011. Recovery Act: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Recipients Face Challenges Meeting Legislative and Program Goals and Requirements. GAO-11-379. Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2011. Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies. GAO-11-92. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2011. Recovery Act: States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds and Actions Needed to Address Implementation Challenges and Bolster Accountability. GAO-10-604. Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2010. Recovery Act: Funds Continue to Provide Fiscal Relief to States and Localities, While Accountability and Reporting Challenges Need to Be Fully Addressed. GAO-09-1016. Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2009. Employment and Training Program Grants: Evaluating Impact and Enhancing Monitoring Would Improve Accountability. GAO-08-486. Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2008. Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Improve the Workforce System. GAO-07-1061T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007. Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help Gauge Employer Involvement. GAO-07-167. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2006. Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005. Workforce Investment Act: 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: 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. Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. Washington, D.C.: November 1999.

Summary: Labor received $500 million from the Recovery Act to help create, better understand, and provide training for jobs within the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries, commonly referred to as "green jobs." Since 2009, Labor has also "greened" existing programs and funded additional green jobs training grants and other efforts. In light of the amount of funding targeted to green programs within Labor, GAO examined: (1) what is known about the objectives and coordination of Labor's green jobs efforts, (2) what type of green jobs training grantees provided and how selected grantees aligned their training to meet employers' green jobs needs, (3) what is known about program outcomes and what challenges, if any, grantees faced in implementing their programs, and (4) what Labor has done to assist and monitor its green jobs grantees. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations; surveyed selected offices within Labor using two questionnaires--one for directly- funded green jobs efforts and one for other efforts; interviewed Labor officials and 11 out of 103 green jobs training grantees; and analyzed relevant Labor documents and data. Of the $595 million identified by Labor as having been appropriated or allocated specifically for green jobs activities since 2009, approximately $501 million went toward efforts with training and support services as their primary objective, with much of that funding provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Because the Recovery Act directed federal agencies to spend funds quickly and prudently, Labor implemented a number of high-investment green jobs efforts simultaneously. As a result, in some cases, Recovery Act training programs were initiated prior to a full assessment of the demand for green jobs, which presented challenges for grantees. While Labor's internal agencies initially communicated with each other and with other federal agencies after the Recovery Act was passed, most Recovery Act grants have ended or are winding down. Labor created its green jobs definitional framework to provide local flexibility, and grantees we interviewed broadly interpreted Labor's framework to include any job that could be linked, directly or indirectly, to a beneficial environmental outcome. Labor's training data show most participants were trained in construction or manufacturing. While the findings of our site visits are not generalizable, all grantees we interviewed said they had worked closely with local employers to align their training program with the green skills needs of local employers. Most grantees we interviewed also told us they had incorporated green elements into existing training programs aimed at traditional skills, such as teaching weatherization as part of a carpentry training program. The outcomes of Labor's green jobs training programs remain uncertain, in part because data on final outcomes were not yet available for about 40 percent of grantees, as of the end of 2012. Analysis of grantees with final outcome data shows they collectively reported training slightly more individuals than they had projected, but job placements were at 55 percent of the target. Training-related job placement rates remain unknown because Labor's Office of Inspector General (OIG) found these data unreliable. Grantees we interviewed were generally positive about Labor's green job training programs, but most said they had faced challenges during implementation, including: (1) a lack of reliable green jobs labor market information, (2) insufficient time to meet grant requirements, (3) knowledge gaps surrounding green skills and changing energy policies, and (4) difficulty placing participants into green jobs, primarily due to the overall poor economy. Labor has provided technical assistance and taken steps to monitor green jobs training grantees through on-site monitoring visits and quarterly reviews. During these visits and reviews, Labor officials assessed grantee performance, such as by comparing reported program outcomes, including job placements, to targeted performance levels. However, Labor provided only limited guidance on how to document reported job placements. Labor officials required grantees with lower than projected performance levels to implement corrective action plans. In addition, Labor officials told us they have taken steps to improve the quality of grantee reported data, such as by forming an internal workgroup to identify ways to improve the technical assistance they provide to grantees on reporting performance outcomes. GAO recommends that Labor identify lessons learned from the green jobs training programs to enhance its ability to implement such programs in emerging industries. Labor agreed with our recommendation.