The Workforce Investment Act created a new, comprehensive workforce investment system designed to change the way employment and training services are delivered. When WIA was enacted, in 1998, it replaced the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) with three new programs—Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth—that allow for a broader range of services to the general public, no longer using income to determine eligibility for all program services. In addition to establishing these three new programs, WIA requires that services for these programs, along with those of a number of other employment and training programs, including the Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service, be provided through a single service delivery system—the one-stop system. States were required to implement these changes by July 1, 2000. Sixteen categories of programs, receiving an estimated $15 billion from four separate federal agencies, must provide services through the system. (See table 1.) Each state must have one or more designated local workforce investment areas, and as of April 2007, the 50 states reported having 563 local workforce investment areas. Nine states reported having the entire state as its workforce investment area, and California reported having the most local workforce investment areas (50). (See app. III for additional data about the numbers of local workforce investment areas and comprehensive one-stop centers, and related information.) Each local area must have at least one comprehensive one-stop center where core services for all mandatory programs are accessible. WIA allows flexibility in the way these mandatory program partners provide services through the one- stop system, allowing colocation, electronic linkages, or referrals. While WIA requires these mandatory partners to participate, it does not provide additional funds to operate one-stop systems and support one-stop partnerships. As a result, mandatory partners are expected to share the costs of developing and operating one-stop centers. In addition to mandatory partners, one-stop centers have the flexibility to include other optional partners, such as TANF or the Food Stamp Employment and Training program, in the one-stop system to better meet specific state and local workforce development needs. Services may also be offered at satellite or affiliated sites—designated locations that provide access to at least one employment and training program. About $3.3 billion was appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for the three WIA programs—Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth. From 2001 to 2007, the total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in the 50 states declined by 7 percent, and during the same period, the total number of satellite or affiliated sites decreased by 13 percent. Since 2003, 19 states reported a decline in the number of comprehensive one-stop centers and frequently identified a decrease in funds as one of the primary reasons. In our 2007 survey, states reported that 13 of the 16 mandatory programs required under WIA were available at the majority of comprehensive one-stop centers. States reported that three key mandatory programs—WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and the Employment Service—continued to be available on-site at the majority of the one-stop centers. More states also reported that some programs were available at one-stop centers electronically or through referral than in 2001. While states reported they were providing Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service on-site at one-stop centers, some states also provided services through stand-alone Employment Service facilities—offices that focus primarily on assistance funded by the Employment Service. Eighteen states reported operating one or more stand-alone Employment Service offices; 9 of these states reported having at least one unaffiliated stand- alone office outside the one-stop delivery system. States reported that the majority of the physical locations—the buildings that contain the one-stop delivery system—were leased or rented in 2007. Only 10 percent were owned by the state. The total number of comprehensive one-stop centers has declined since we last reviewed it in 2001. Over the 6-year period, the number of one-stop centers across the 50 states has declined from 1,756 in 2001 to 1,637 in 2007. (See fig. 2.) Over the last 4 years, 19 states reported a decrease in one-stop centers, frequently identifying a decrease in funds as one of the primary reasons. In contrast, 10 states reported an increase during this period, citing, among other reasons, an increase in demand for services and an increase in the number of on-site partners. Changes in the number of comprehensive one-stop centers in the last 4 years were generally relatively small. Thirty-five states reported little (less than 10 percent) or no change in the total number of comprehensive one- stop centers. However, some states reported large changes, including 5 states that reported more than a 25 percent reduction in the number of one-stop centers. Connecticut, for example, reported more than a 35 percent decrease in one-stop centers, from 11 to 7 centers, a change that state officials attributed to a reduction in funding that caused one-stop centers to be closed or redesignated as satellite sites. Conversely, 4 states reported increases of 25 percent or more in the number of one-stop centers. For example, Montana reported a seven-fold increase, from 2 to 14 one-stop centers, as part of a statewide restructuring of its one-stop delivery system that involved converting former satellite and affiliated sites into comprehensive one-stop centers. (See app. IV for detailed information about the numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers and satellite or affiliated sites and changes over time.) From 2001 to 2007, the total number of satellite or affiliated sites across the 50 states declined by 13 percent, from 2,032 to 1,764. However, the number of satellite sites has increased slightly in the last 4 years. Between 2003 and 2007, 17 states reported increasing the number of satellite sites. Illinois, for example, reported a 45 percent increase in satellite sites (from 53 to 77) to meet the demand in underserved areas and to respond to specific large dislocation events. In contrast, 17 states reported a decline in the number of satellite sites. For example, in Florida, the number decreased by 56 percent—from 39 to 17—because of ongoing funding cuts. In other states, however, the decrease in the number of satellite sites was often the result of a change in the states’ official designation of satellite and affiliated sites. Fifteen states reported no change in the number of satellite sites since 2003. (See app. IV for detailed information about the numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers and satellite or affiliated sites and changes over time.) The use of satellite sites in rural areas has changed in recent years, according to a 2005 study sponsored by Labor. In the five localities that the researchers reviewed, the rural local workforce investment areas were focusing more on developing comprehensive one-stop centers than on creating multiple, dispersed satellite or affiliated sites. Researchers attributed the move away from satellite sites to comprehensive centers to a number of reasons, including the increase in the availability of electronic access to core services, the greater ease of supervising colocated staff, the increased visibility of comprehensive centers, and the fact that affiliated sites often had limited hours that made them less attractive. In 2007, states reported that 13 of the 16 mandatory programs required under WIA were available at the majority of comprehensive one-stop centers. States reported that three key mandatory programs—WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and the Employment Service—continued to be available on-site at the majority of the one-stop centers. More states also reported that some programs’ services were available at one-stop centers electronically or through referral. These programs included Job Corps, Senior Community Service Employment, and Adult Education and Literacy. (See table 2.) In addition, states reported that services for an optional program, TANF, were available in one-stop centers in more states in 2007 than in 2001. Sixteen states reported that TANF was available in the majority of one-stop centers in 2001, whereas 30 states reported that TANF was available at the typical comprehensive one-stop center in 2007. (See app. V for additional information about program services provided at a typical one-stop center across all 50 states.) While states reported they were providing Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service on-site at one-stop centers, some states also provided services through stand-alone Employment Service facilities—offices that focus primarily on job search and placement assistance. Overall, 18 states reported in our 2007 survey that they had at least one stand-alone Employment Service office. Nine states reported that at least one of these stand-alone offices were unaffiliated and not part of the one-stop delivery system. Six of these states reported that they operated all of their stand- alone Employment Service offices as unaffiliated sites completely outside the one-stop system. This represents a modest decrease from the figures Labor reported in 2006, when 19 states overall were identified as having at least one stand-alone Employment Service office, 13 of which were operating parallel systems disconnected from the local one-stop centers to a substantial degree. (See fig. 3.) (See app. VI for additional information about stand-alone employment service offices.) The Wagner-Peyser Act requires that all labor exchange services be provided as part of the one-stop delivery system. Labor’s implementing regulations provide that Employment Service offices may not exist outside the one-stop delivery system, but allow stand-alone Employment Service offices to operate as affiliated sites or as electronically or technologically linked access points. Labor has expressed concern that these stand-alone Employment Service offices cause confusion for individuals and employers and promote duplication of effort. While Labor has the option to withhold funding, it has not done so, but has taken other steps to encourage states to provide all employment services through the one-stop system. These actions include providing policy guidance, monitoring the status of states’ workforce integration, conducting forums, and providing technical assistance to states in support of integration of stand-alone offices into one-stop centers. In addition, Labor reports that it is requiring states to include information on their efforts to improve one-stop coordination and integration in their WIA state plan updates this year. And Labor has proposed legislative initiatives and regulatory changes— that currently await reauthorization—designed to better integrate services at the one-stop. Despite the range of Labor’s efforts, states have made only modest progress in bringing these systems together. Since the establishment of the one-stop system, some have expressed concern that state-owned buildings may be reducing states’ flexibility to optimize their physical space. We found, however, that most states reported that they owned relatively few buildings, leasing or renting about two-thirds of the physical locations for their one-stop systems. Overall, states reported that the one-stop delivery system comprised nearly 3,400 physical locations. Of the overall total, states reported that about 65 percent of the buildings were leased or rented, and only 10 percent were state-owned. (See fig. 4.) Most states (37) reported that they owned less than 20 percent of the buildings used to operate the one-stop system, and 10 of these states reported that they did not own any of the physical locations. In contrast, 4 states reported that over half of the buildings used to operate the one-stop delivery systems were state-owned. Two states also reported that the majority of the buildings were neither leased nor owned but otherwise provided, including facilities that were provided for free. States generally reported that a small percentage of buildings in their one- stop delivery system were located on the campuses of community colleges. In our survey, 31 states reported having at least one facility located on a community college campus, and these states reported a total of 186 physical locations—approximately 6 percent—on campus. North Carolina reported the highest percentage of facilities located on community college campuses at 25 percent, and with 31 physical locations, represented 17 percent of the total number. (See app. VII for more information about the numbers of physical locations on the campuses of community colleges.) While most states relied heavily on one or two programs to support one- stop infrastructure costs, some states dispersed the costs among numerous programs. WIA and the Employment Service were the two programs most often identified as funding sources used for infrastructure—the nonpersonnel costs—of operating comprehensive one- stop centers. In our 2007 survey, most states reported that WIA and the Employment Service were the largest contributors toward infrastructure costs for program year 2005. (See fig. 5.) Of the 48 states that were able to report on infrastructure funding for comprehensive one-stop centers, 23 states identified WIA as the top funding source and 19 states reported that Employment Service funds were the largest funding source. Three states reported that TANF funds were the largest funding source. (See fig. 6.) The choices states made regarding infrastructure funding appear to be independent of state size, population density, or the number of comprehensive one-stop centers. While WIA and the Employment Service were the primary funding sources used to support infrastructure costs in program year 2005, states varied in their ability to report more detailed information on infrastructure costs in our survey. Of the states that could report, more states reported that a greater percentage of their Employment Service funds than WIA funds were used to finance the infrastructure of the one-stop comprehensive centers. (See fig. 7.) Specifically, of the 41 states that provided estimates for the percentage of their Employment Service allotment used for infrastructure costs, 29 reported using more than 10 percent. Conversely, of the 29 states that provided estimates for the percentage of WIA funds, 21 states reported using 10 percent or less. (See app. VIII for state-reported data on the percentage of WIA and Employment Service allocations used for infrastructure costs during program year 2005.) Moreover, for program year 2005, states reported less reliance on other programs for funding the one-stop infrastructure costs than in the past. (See table 3.) For example, over a 5-year period, the number of states that reported using Vocational Rehabilitation program funds for infrastructure costs declined from 37 to 24. While the number of states relying on TANF funds has declined, more states identified it as one of the three largest funding sources for infrastructure costs for program year 2005 than previously reported. Sixteen states reported that TANF was one of the three largest contributors to financing one-stop centers, including 6 of the 9 states with single statewide workforce investment areas. In fiscal year 2000, 12 states reported that TANF was one of the three largest funding sources. Regarding the stand-alone offices, we asked states to provide estimates of their state’s total Employment Service allotment used to support the infrastructure of these offices. Among the 6 states that provided this information, they reported that the amount ranged from 0 to 14 percent, and the overall average was approximately 5 percent. However, the state with the most stand-alone Employment Service offices, Iowa, reported that it did not use any of its Employment Service allotment to support the infrastructure of these offices. Instead, Iowa financed the infrastructure costs of its 30 stand-alone offices with state general funds. Nearly all states submitted customer satisfaction data for both job seekers and employers to Labor for program year 2005, as required under WIA. In addition, 12 states reported that they had established measures for customer satisfaction beyond what is required. For example, some states collected information on waiting time for assistance, helpfulness of the services received, and extent to which services met customer expectations. Of these 12 states, 10 established additional customer satisfaction measures for both job seekers and participating employers, and 2 states established additional customer satisfaction measures just for job seekers. (See table 4.) Since 2005, when Labor moved to using common measures, Labor has granted, upon request, waivers to states exempting them from reporting on participant and employer customer satisfaction. As of August, 2007, Labor reported that 20 states, including the District of Columbia, have such waivers, exempting them from reporting customer satisfaction data. In addition, all states report on employment-related outcomes for the common performance measures—three for adults and three for youth— and are required to negotiate with Labor separate goals and report on outcomes for both the WIA Adult and WIA Dislocated Worker programs. According to state officials, comprehensive one-stop centers also collect customer satisfaction data not required by the state, but the extent to which one-stop centers are collecting information varies considerably. Eight states reported that all of their comprehensive one-stop centers collected additional information on customer satisfaction, and 9 more states reported that the majority of their one-stop centers collected additional information. Conversely, 7 states reported that none of their one-stop centers collected any additional information from job seekers or participating employers. (See fig. 8.) (See app. IX for states’ reporting on the extent that one-stop centers collect additional information on customer satisfaction.) Our study presents a snapshot in time of the evolving structure of the one- stop system in each of the 50 states. Because WIA provided states and localities with flexibility in deciding how to implement the one-stop system, the picture continues to evolve as systems are tailored to meet ever changing local needs. The results of our survey suggest that states and localities have developed a variety of different approaches to deliver services. However, nine states reported operating at least one stand-alone Employment Service office outside the one-stop delivery system, a situation prohibited by the Wagner-Peyser Act and its implementing regulations. Although the services provided may be useful, because these offices are not linked to the one-stop system in any way—either electronically or by referral, program participants may not be receiving the complete range of services they need to gain employment or other job- related assistance. It may also be the case that these separate systems result in duplication of effort and inefficient use of resources. We support Labor’s steps thus far to integrate Wagner-Peyser-funded employment services into the one-stop system, but they have resulted in only modest improvement. Without further integration, these separate stand-alone offices may continue to create confusion for clients, result in duplication of effort, and undermine the key goal of WIA—to consolidate the nation’s workforce development system. We recommend that the Secretary of Labor step up action to ensure compliance with the Wagner-Peyser Act and its implementing regulations by requiring that all stand-alone offices be affiliated or linked in some way, either electronically or through direct referral, with the one-stop system. Such actions may include additional technical assistance and working with states to establish progress benchmarks with the understanding that failure to meet the benchmarks may result in further action up to and including a loss of grant funding. We provided a draft of this report to Labor for review and comment. Labor commented that the report provides significant information that will be useful to Congress in reauthorizing WIA, but the department disagreed with some of the report’s findings, the recommendation, and the report’s title. Specifically, Labor commented that it does not believe that the report’s findings regarding the presence of unaffiliated stand-alone Employment Service offices and the recommendation to step up action to bring them into compliance are sound. Labor comments that it is not aware of any specific instance of an unaffiliated, stand-alone Employment Service office. Labor states that requirements to become affiliated are broad and easy to meet and, as a result, believes that unaffiliated offices do not exist. Labor suggests that because we rely on a survey of states to collect the information, the data are most likely the result of a misunderstanding on the part of survey respondents. In conducting our work, we followed generally accepted government auditing standards. We developed the survey instrument based on a questionnaire used in previous studies, and, for this study, we pretested it with state WIA administrators from five states to ensure that it was easily understandable, unambiguous, and unbiased. Furthermore, officials’ responses to other questions confirmed their understanding, and as part of our quality control, we followed up with state officials when their responses were ambiguous. In one case, for example, responses were ambiguous on the questions related to stand- alone offices. We conducted a follow-up conversation with a state official who confirmed that the states’ stand-alone offices were not affiliated with the one-stop system. We therefore believe that respondents understood our questions and that our survey results are accurate. We stand by our findings and our recommendation. Given that Labor reports requirements to be affiliated with the one-stop system are easy to meet, we hope that Labor will take steps to ensure that all states are meeting those requirements. In addition, Labor notes that withholding funding for noncompliance would be difficult and inefficient. We concur that withholding funds would be draconian, and we would hope that, given the ease in meeting the requirements, no state would suffer this consequence. In addition, Labor expressed concerns that while we note a number of actions undertaken by officials to better foster coordination, we have not fully reported all steps Labor has taken. We have modified the text to reflect the new information provided in Labor’s written comments. Finally, Labor stated that the report’s draft title does not fully reflect the broad range of topics discussed in this report. We have modified the title. Labor’s entire comments are in appendix X. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, relevant congressional committees, and others who are interested. Copies will also be made available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found on the last page of this report. Other major contributors are listed in appendix XI. Our study assessed (1) the current composition of states’ one-stop systems and how this has changed over time, (2) what funds are primarily used to support states’ one-stop system infrastructure and how this has changed over time, and (3) the extent to which states are monitoring customer satisfaction with service delivery at one-stop centers. To provide information on how state and local one-stop delivery systems established under Workforce Investment Act (WIA) deliver employment and training services to job seekers and employers, we conducted an electronic survey of state workforce officials in 50 states. We did not survey the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. territories. The survey included questions on states’ one-stop delivery systems related to the numbers of local workforce investment areas and participants served; numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers, satellite or affiliated sites, and how these changed from program year 2003 to April 1, 2007; infrastructure cost data for program year 2005; use of stand-alone Employment Service offices; mandatory programs and how these services were provided; extent of integration of certain functions (e.g., reception area, information systems, and intake forms) at comprehensive one-stop centers; and program monitoring of customer satisfaction. The questionnaire was forwarded to state officials in April 2007, and responses were received through late May 2007. We received surveys from all 50 states, although some states did not answer every question. States’ survey responses were as of April 1, 2007. Because we administered the survey to all 50 states, our results are not subject to sampling error. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted, or the sources of information available to respondents in answering a question, can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We included steps in the development of the survey, the collection of data, and the editing and analysis of data to minimize such nonsampling errors. To reduce nonsampling error, the questionnaire was reviewed by survey specialists and pretested with officials from 5 states to develop a questionnaire that was relevant, easy to comprehend, unambiguous, and unbiased. We made changes to the content and format of the questionnaire based on the specialists’ reviews and the results of the pretests. Completed questionnaires were keypunched, and each record was verified by comparing them with their corresponding questionnaires, and any errors were corrected. When the data were analyzed, a second independent analyst checked all computer programs. Finally, to assess the reliability of certain data obtained from the survey, we independently researched the information from other publicly available sources. In order to analyze trends in states’ one-stop delivery systems, we compared 2007 survey data with survey data from 2000 and 2001. In addition to our surveys, we conducted a literature review to identify relevant findings from other studies—including those sponsored by Labor—that examined one-stop delivery systems. We conducted our work between April 2007 and August 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Percentage change cannot be calculated. State did not report this information. In our survey, we asked states to consider the typical comprehensive one- stop center in their state and identify federal programs that were most often provided on-site. Figure 9 summarizes a typical one-stop center for each state. State did not report this information. Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director Dianne M. Blank, Assistant Director Timothy Hall, Analyst-in-Charge Thomas McCabe made significant contributions to this report in all facets of the work. In addition, Stuart Kaufman assisted in the design and analysis of the national survey; Jean McSween provided methodological assistance, Jessica Botsford provided legal support, and Susannah Compton helped develop the report’s message. Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve the Workforce System. GAO-07-1051T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007. Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program Impact. GAO-07-594. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2007. Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help Gauge Employer Involvement. GAO-07-167. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2006. National Emergency Grants: Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award Timeliness and Data Collection, but Further Steps Can Improve Process. GAO-06-870. Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2006. Trade Adjustment Assistance: Most Workers in Five Layoffs Received Services, but Better Outreach Needed on New Benefits. GAO-06-43. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2006. Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can Be Learned from Program, but Labor Needs to Make Data Available. GAO-06-53. Washington, D.C.: December 9, 2005. Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. GAO-06-82. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2005. Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but Little Is Known about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005. Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment Services to Claimants. GAO-05-413. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2005. Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements. GAO-05-539. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005. Workforce Investment Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address Employers’ Needs. GAO-05-259. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2005. Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient. GAO-05-54. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2004. Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO-04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004. National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant Awards and Improve Data. GAO-04-496. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004. Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve Quality of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. GAO-04-308. Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004. Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Worker Training and Employment through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with Federally Funded Programs. GAO-04-282. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2004. Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on State Allocations. GAO-03-1043. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2003. Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization. GAO-03-884T. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003. Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003. Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO-03-636. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2003. Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers. GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003. Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003. Workforce Investment Act: States’ Spending Is on Track, but Better Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting. GAO-03-239. Washington, D.C.: November 22, 2002. Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002. Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service Strategies, but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development. GAO-02-413. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002. Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274. Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2002. Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness. GAO-02-275. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002. Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2001. Also testimony GAO-02-94T. Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of TANF Services. GAO/T-HEHS-00-145. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000.

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