In recent years, Congress passed legislation that modified the visa program for foreign workers who enter the country with H-1B visas to work in specialty occupations. Changes have included expanding the limits on the number of workers who may be approved for these visas from 65,000 to 195,000, providing Labor with additional enforcement authority, and establishing an employer fee to fund training of American workers. The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-277) authorized programs to provide technical skills training and scholarships for low-income postsecondary students pursuing high technology fields of study. To fund these programs, it assessed a $500 fee on employers for each person for whom they submitted an application for an H-1B visa. In 2000, the H-1B visa application fee for employers was raised to $1,000. Also, the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (P.L 106-313) clarified some guidelines for administering the skill grant program and included Commerce as a consultant to the skill grant distribution process. The fee for employers who apply for H-1B visa workers, which funds the skill grants and scholarship grants, expires on September 30, 2003. Currently, 55 percent of the fees collected are distributed to Labor for skill grants and 22 percent are distributed to NSF for scholarship grants. The remaining 23 percent of the funds is to be used for other activities. The 2003 Labor budget proposed redirecting the skill grant funding beginning in fiscal year 2003 to reducing the backlog of applications submitted on behalf of foreign workers for permanent residency. In 1998, Congress also passed WIA, which replaced the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) and introduced various reforms to the coordination and delivery of federal employment and training services. WIA seeks to create a workforce investment system that connects employment, education, and training services to better match workers to labor market needs. WIA specifies separate funding sources for each of the act’s main client groups adults, dislocated workers, and youth. The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 linked the H-1B skill grants to federally funded employment and training services administered by Labor by requiring that the grants be awarded to private industry councils, workforce investment boards or regional consortia of these boards. Labor is responsible for administering and overseeing the H-1B grant program on a national level, which includes compiling and collecting reports, maintaining an H-1B skill grants website, and providing technical assistance. Labor’s regional offices assign one staff person to each grantee within the region to serve as the front-line contact and monitor of the grantees. Through its Office of Policy and Research, Labor has awarded 43 skill grants totaling about $96 million distributed in three separate rounds in February 2000, July 2000, and October 2000, and an additional 24 grants totaling about $67 million were distributed in a rolling award process beginning in December 2001. Workforce investment boards or regional consortia of these can receive skill grants. For each application, a local workforce investment board must indicate that the project is consistent with, and will be coordinated with, the region’s workforce investment efforts. The 2000 law allotted 25 percent of the skill grants to business- related consortia; a first round was awarded in May 2002 to 14 grantees, totaling about $34 million. Labor convenes panels to review grant applications and recommends grantees for selection on the basis of specific criteria, such as target population, service delivery, and ability to meet labor market needs. Grantees have been required to submit a quarterly financial report and a quarterly narrative progress report. While Labor did not require a standard format for the narrative progress report until the quarter ending September 30, 2002, some grantees used a template developed by Labor that included numbers for the following: individuals continuing to be served from any quarter, individuals served during the quarter, individuals served since the beginning of the project, individuals newly enrolled, and individuals who exited without completion. Labor limited the amount of money grantees’ could spend on administrative costs to 10 percent of the funding and set the grant period at up to 2 years, although some grantees have received 1 year extensions at no additional cost. Grantees are required to obtain matching funds from other parties; the amount they have been required to obtain ranged from 25 percent to 50 percent of the grant, depending on the round in which they received their grant. Business consortia grantees are required to obtain matching funds of 100 percent of the grant they receive. The 2000 law provided specific guidance about the types of training that should be provided under the skill grants, which was absent from the 1998 law. It said that the training is not limited to skill levels commensurate with a 4-year undergraduate degree, but should include the preparation of workers for a broad range of positions along a career ladder. It also required that at least 80 percent of the grants be awarded to programs and projects that train employed and unemployed workers in skills in high technology, information technology, and biotechnology. The 1998 law did not elaborate on the nature of the training authorized and did not mention any particular occupations. NSF provides scholarship grants to schools that grant associate, baccalaureate, or graduate degrees. The schools are selected by panels that review applications from postsecondary schools. Students must be majoring in computer science, engineering, or math; must be enrolled in classes full-time; must demonstrate financial need; and must demonstrate academic potential and ability. Initially, only students who were eligible for Pell grants could be eligible for scholarships, but NSF later relaxed this requirement to include students who were eligible for any federal financial aid. Each student receives up to $3,125 per year for up to 4 years. As of May 2002, 277 schools have obtained grants ranging from $24,750 to $760,320 in a series of three rounds of grant awards totaling about $72 million. Schools may ask for an additional 5 percent of the total requested scholarship amount for administrative costs, an increase from the original 2 percent for the first set of grants awarded. Schools may also ask for an additional 5 percent of the total requested scholarship amount for student support services. Skill grantees use the grant program to offer training through a variety of service delivery options to people whose skills need to be upgraded; scholarship grantees use the scholarship program to offer traditional degree programs in mathematics, computer science, and engineering to low-income students. While the skill grant program requires grantees to create partnerships to implement the program, the nature of the partnerships is flexible. The grant training, which can be used to prepare workers for a range of occupations, can be offered to employed and unemployed individuals in a variety of settings. However, in the scholarship grant program, the postsecondary schools receiving grants provide scholarships toward undergraduate and graduate postsecondary education, with a goal of attracting and retaining low-income students in computer science, engineering, and mathematics degree programs. Some schools are having difficulty finding students eligible for the scholarship grant program to fill all available slots. NSF officials, however, believe that their change to a less strict standard for financial eligibility has made it easier to recruit students. In implementing their skill grant programs, grantees form partnerships to meet local workforce needs and to train diverse participants. However, many grantees have not planned for alternative funding to sustain the training program beyond the 2-year time frame allowed for the grant. The skill grant program requires grantees to create partnerships with local entities to implement the program, yet the nature of the partnerships is flexible. Data on participants are limited, however, because Labor does not require grantees to collect consistent participant and outcome information. Although many grantees have used the skill grant program to create innovative programs and build ties with new partners, many have not planned for alternative funding beyond the end of the grant period and may be unable to offer their program in the future. Skill grantees taking advantage of the skill grant program’s flexibility, have formed partnerships with local entities, and have used a variety of innovative service delivery options. For the first three rounds in which skill grants were awarded, workforce investment boards or private industry councils were required to submit grant proposals to Labor; however various partners initiated or implemented the skill grant training program to best meet local workforce needs. Other partners may include employers, unions, for-profit and not-for-profit training institutions, community colleges, public and private 4-year colleges, and other organizations such as business trade or industry associations or community and faith-based organizations. The following sites that we visited exemplify the variety of partner configurations and service delivery options. At several sites in various states, the grantee implemented the skill grant using local government, nonprofit or community based organizations that were also administering WIA programs. The skill grant funds were awarded either to employers to train current workers or individuals to upgrade their skill set. For example, one offered businesses grants of up to $50,000 to train their employees in information technology, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or precision manufacturing; another offered funds for IT training and targeted employed workers as well as dislocated (laid-off) workers, low-income people, and high school students. The local boards advertised the availability of training through standard advertising channels such as flyers, newspapers, and the one- stop centers. The training providers were chosen by the employer or the individuals participating in the programs. At a site in California, a major health care provider with thousands of employees partnered with the local board, the union, and training providers to address specific skill shortages within its company. Similarly, at a site in Massachusetts, unions at two manufacturing plants partnered with the local board, training providers, and the employers. For both grants, training was available primarily to company employees. In this arrangement, the local workforce boards were not heavily involved in the operation of the training program, but did connect the grant to the local workforce system. Employers and unions implemented the skill grants in the regions covered by the employers instead of limiting participation to only workers in the area served by the board. At a site in D.C., a college initiated and implemented the skill grant, while the local board advised the college and established networks to other partners. The college sought out employers who wanted their underemployed workers to receive IT training. It also marketed the training directly to unemployed individuals. All training occurred at the college administrating the grant. At one site in California, the local board partnered with four training providers to offer different IT curriculums to both employed individuals and dislocated workers. The training partners and the board were responsible for recruiting participants for the program. The skill grant training programs vary in length and by type of provider; different approaches are taken to respond to employers and trainees’ needs. Training programs at sites we visited were as short as a 1-day course on new software taught through a for-profit training provider and as long as a 2-year college curriculum at a technical college. A grantee has the flexibility to provide different training at different sites. For example, one grantee ran four different IT training programs, each with a different time frame: one on weekends for 9 months at a community college; one summerlong program on weekdays at a community college; one full time for 10 months at a nonprofit training provider; and one with various schedules offered through a major state university continuing education program. Depending on the partners and service delivery option for the skill grant, the training can take place in a variety of locations, such as on-site at a company or at a training facility. At one skill grant location, a local community college offered math, electronics, and other courses at the workplace after the close of the workday. Employees could earn an associate degree in computer and telecommunications technology at a convenient location, while upgrading their skills for their employer. The skill grant program’s flexibility allows grantees to adjust the content of their training in response to changes in local labor market demands or events. The grant administrators at one site providing training in both health care and IT increased the number of health care training participants and decreased the number of IT training participants in response to changing employer demand for workers. Similarly, a local board that partnered with two large employers to train current workers amended their grant to include training for dislocated workers when one employer had a major lay-off. Participants who had been laid off could continue in the training program. Despite the flexibility of the skill grant program, many of the skill grantees experienced challenges during the start-up phase of the grant. On average, grantees took about 4 months from the time the grants were awarded until the programs were operational and began serving individuals. For two, forming new partnerships with employers and training providers took longer than anticipated. For others, the economic downturn that began in 2001 altered their ability to participate. For a few grantees, these obstacles delayed their program start-up 9 months or longer. As a result, several grantees asked or planned to ask for a no-cost extension of up to 1 year beyond the original 2-year grant period. Between December 2001 and July 2002, Labor has awarded an additional 38 grants, including 14 awards under the 25 percent allotment reserved for business or business-related consortia. Based on information in the summaries of the funded projects, some of the regional consortia are led by large nationwide corporations such as MetLife, Inc., or General Motors Corporation, while other programs are led by community colleges, or in one case, an organization working to enhance opportunities for the Latino population. Many of the projects cover geographic areas larger than the areas served through a single local workforce board. For example, one project led by a national employer will serve participants in five states: Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, New York, and Ohio. Other projects will serve participants in a broad area of one state or a few selected major metropolitan areas around the country. In the first three rounds of skill grant awards, the training programs served a range of participants, in part because of the flexibility afforded in the skill grant program. The skill grant programs were not required to select participants on the basis of eligibility factors such as age, income, or employment status of the individuals. However, in its solicitations for grant applications, Labor encouraged grant applicants to reach out to underrepresented groups, such as minorities, women, and individuals with disabilities. Grantees targeted various combinations of employed, dislocated, and unemployed individuals, and specific populations such as youth, disabled, or public assistance recipients. For example, at one site, the grantee targeted two groups: individuals who were employed and wanted to upgrade IT skills or gain a new skill set and unemployed individuals who were seeking a computer-related job. At another site, the grantee used the skill grant program to train high school students in an IT program at the vocational high school and also trained employed, dislocated, and low-income adults using other training providers. Data on participant characteristics are limited because Labor did not require standard data on individual participants to be collected and reported. Until the quarter from July 1 through September 30, 2002, grantees were not required to report on standard data elements. For that quarter, Labor will be requiring that grantees submit standard information on the status of participants’ training and certain outcomes, such as new job placements and the number of wage increases individuals received as a result of H-1B training. However, the new requirements still do not require specific demographic data on the individual participants or information on the specific levels of training provided. Because data collection varies across sites, the responses to our survey questions about participant characteristics vary as well. All grantees provided information on the number of training participants in their program, reporting that a total of 16,590 individuals were enrolled in training between March 1, 2000, and January 31, 2002. Grantees from the first three rounds who collected participant employment data (39 of the 43 grantees) report that approximately three-fourths of skill grant participants are employed workers upgrading their skills. In addition, the data from our survey show that the skill grants are reaching a wide range of ages, though focusing more heavily on ages 22 to 39, as shown in figure 1. Because many grantees chose to target employed individuals that want to upgrade skills or change careers, the participants often have some education beyond high school. Information on the educational background of participants in the first three rounds of grants reveals that most of the participants have some college education, many with at least a bachelor’s degree (see figure 2). In one case, a health care training program required that a participant be a registered nurse before receiving training as a nurse specialist in the operating room or critical care. Grantees reported that almost 5,000 participants were members of “underrepresented” groups. Underrepresented groups can include women, minorities, persons with disabilities, and older workers. Information gathered from grantees collecting gender, race, and ethnicity data indicates that a greater percentage of women and African Americans are training for IT occupations in this program than are working in IT occupations nationally. Grantees indicate that 40 percent of the skill grant participants in IT training were female as compared with 27 percent of computer scientists and systems analysts, and computer programmers in the U.S. workforce in 2001, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Further, a higher portion of African Americans and about an equal portion of Hispanics were trained than were present in those key IT occupations, as shown in figure 3. In addition to participant demographic data, some grantees collected outcome data, although these data were limited and had not been standardized. In general, such data are not collected until after participants have ended their training. As of January 31, 2002, grantees reported that 7,646 had completed their entire training program. Most of the remaining participants were still in training; the rest were either waiting for training to start at the time of our survey or had left or dropped out of the program (see figure 4). Because grantees did not always collect outcome data, such as certifications obtained or wages that increased, the outcome data are not complete. The data we collected do not identify whether each participant achieved only one or more than one of the outcomes reported, thus the outcomes cannot be compared to the number of participants who completed their training. While limited, the outcomes reported indicate what the training programs achieved. Grantees reported that 1,796 participants were placed in new or upgraded positions; 1,571 participants increased their wages/salaries; 2,582 participants attained skill certifications, such as a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer; and 1,870 participants attained industry-recognized skill standards. Grantees report a very low number of participants receiving a 2-year or 4-year college degree, which may be due to the 2-year time frame of the skill grant program. Because the program is flexible, grantees can choose to measure success with outcomes relevant to their service delivery option. For example, a grantee that is targeting unemployed individuals can measure job placements, while a grantee targeting employed individuals can measure wage gains or job retention. Outcomes measured included student or employer satisfaction, students’ continuation in school, job retention, job placements, wage gains, or upgraded positions. Only 1 of the 43 grantees is planning to measure reduced reliance on H-1B workers as an outcome. Employers and employees we interviewed reported that the training is valuable because it may contribute to an employee’s loyalty to the company or may provide a service within the company that would otherwise have been outsourced. For example, at one skill grant location, employees of a small nonprofit organization learned how to edit and upgrade the company’s website. By gaining the skills through existing staff, the company became more competitive and saved money. Even though grantees were interested in tracking outcomes of participants, and had attempted to do so, they encountered a number of challenges. Since the programs were largely based on the needs of employers, the purpose of the training was often to upgrade a worker’s skills, which is not necessarily connected to an easily measured outcome. For example, training that helps a registered nurse become an operating room specialist or helps an employee at an IT firm upgrade his or her skills to keep up with current technology may not be accompanied with a wage gain or promotion. A couple of grantees we visited said that the training helped employees avoid being laid off with the recent dip in the economy. In addition, some skill grantees said they had a difficult time collecting data from private industry employers who were reluctant to give personal information, such as wages, on their employees. Although grantees were required to outline a plan in their applications for sustaining their programs beyond the grant period, some skill grantees who were in their last year of funding had not identified definite future funding sources. During our site visits, grantees said that the H-1B grant provided funding to initiate programs. For example, one grantee said it gave their program the “shot in the arm” it needed to start a new and innovative training program. Some grantees hoped that continuing the program would be easier once the program was established. In their survey responses, grantees identified a wide variety of other funding sources they expected to use to sustain the training programs established under the skill grant. The most common sources of funds were other federal programs, WIA program funds (adult, dislocated workers, or youth program), H-1B employers, and tuition assistance/remission (see figure 5). However, several grantees we visited did not have definite plans for alternative funding beyond the program’s 2-year limit and may be unable to offer their program in the future. For example, one program that trained in IT areas had planned to seek funding from employers that were hiring graduates of the training program, but with the downturn in the IT industry, employers were not expected to want to contribute as readily. Some grantees were planning to apply for another H-1B skill grant to continue their programs, but whether they would be approved, was not known. In the recent grant solicitation, Labor has allowed grantees to reapply to continue a program but has required at least some expansion of the grantee’s program. Previous skill grant recipients were encouraged to apply for another H-1B grant to provide a different approach or scope to skills training, including the option to expand the existing training program. Labor did award one grantee from the first round of awards another H-1B grant in the fourth round to expand its initial IT training program. The grant administrator at this site commented that continued funding could only improve the training now that the infrastructure was in place. The scholarship grant program emphasizes the importance of attracting and retaining low-income students in computer science, engineering, and mathematics degree programs, primarily by providing them tuition funds and supplemental income to assist with living expenses. As of May 1, 2002, 7,706 students had received scholarships through the program. Scholarship program coordinators at sites we visited noted that students who meet the low-income requirement for this program typically have to work at least part-time, in addition to attending school. According to an NSF official, the scholarships, which are not restricted to tuition, can be used for any expenses related to school, such as housing, transportation, or childcare. School officials said that students could use the time that they would be working at a job to focus on schoolwork. One student said that the scholarship is helping her to finish the program faster because she is required to be a full-time student to receive the scholarship. Moreover, two students thought that the scholarship attracted them to these fields of study when they were debating what major to choose. One student told us that even though she excelled in math in high school, she only considered becoming a math major after she learned about the scholarship opportunity. On the basis of data collected by NSF on students who receive the scholarships, the program is attracting a higher proportion of women and minorities than have pursued degrees in computer science, engineering, and mathematics as a whole. As shown in figure 6, scholarship recipients include a greater portion of women and minorities than are included among computer science, engineering, and mathematics degree awardees. Approximately 37 percent of the students in the scholarship program are women, as compared with 24 percent of all students earning computer and information science, engineering and engineering related technologies, and mathematics bachelor’s degrees in 1999-2000, according to Department of Education statistics. Further, the percentage of minority students in the program was higher than the percentage of minority students earning comparable bachelor’s degrees nationally. During our visits we found that while the scholarship program is serving low-income students, some of the schools were having trouble filling their scholarship slots. An NSF program official agreed that some of the smaller schools were having trouble filling slots, and that one complaint heard from school representatives responsible for the program was the restrictive requirement that students be eligible for Pell grants to receive an award. Effective January 2002, NSF relaxed this criteria to require that students are federal financial-aid eligible, a less restrictive criteria. The NSF program official estimates that while enrollments appear to have increased since the criteria was relaxed, the effect of this change will not be known for another year; however, he believes the change has made it easier to recruit students. Moreover, since the start of the program, some schools have begun other initiatives to publicize the program to find more students that meet the eligibility requirements, which may help to increase the enrollments in the scholarship program. The skill grant training is based on local workforce needs and addresses occupations both below and at the bachelor’s degree level required for H-1B visas, whereas the scholarship program’s training is on the basis of national workforce needs and the jobs that many H-1B visa holders fill. The skill grant training is designed by grantees to address skill shortages in the local workforce. However, the programs, as permitted by law, do not always prepare participants for the specific kind of jobs held by H-1B visa holders. The scholarship program also focuses its efforts on attracting and keeping students in specific fields with national workforce shortages. As established by law, the skill grants were intended to provide technical skills training, but acceptable areas of training were not prescribed. Labor, in its solicitations for grant applications, stated that the funds were intended for skill training in high-skill occupations that are in demand by U.S. businesses. Its guidance stated that the overall goal of H-1B-financed training is to raise the skills of American workers so that they can fill high- skill jobs presently being filled by temporary H-1B workers. Labor also stated that one key indication of the occupations in demand is the number of employer applications for H-1B foreign workers, and noted that two industries appear to generate the most current H-1B demand—IT and health care. The solicitations included an appendix of specific occupations in which job openings were certified through these applications; the top two occupations by far that were listed were “occupations in systems analysis and programming” (an IT occupation) and “therapists” (a health care occupation). However, many applications were never filled with a foreign worker. INS data on the actual workers who eventually obtain visas indicate a different mix; the largest category is computer-related occupations, while medicine and health occupations represent a much smaller portion of the visas approved, as shown in table 1. Most of the skill grant programs funded with the first three rounds of grants distributed in 2000 were providing training for IT occupations. Several programs trained in a variety of areas, but of the 43 grantees selected in the first three rounds of grants, 35 provided training in IT and 19 of these trained exclusively in IT. The number of grantees who offered training in specific categories is shown in figure 7. As applicants for skill grants planned their programs, they used information that Labor supplied in the solicitation about occupations in demand and supplemented it with additional information about local labor market needs. Of the 43 grantees selected in the first three rounds, 33 tried to obtain H-1B visa data for their area to help them identify shortage areas being filled with foreign workers, but only 23 were successful. During our site visits, some grantees said they followed up with the employers identified as having H-1B visa workers and discussed their workforce needs. The surveyed applicants also used other approaches to identify local workforce needs: 42 reported using state and/or regional labor market information; 40 reported using information from employers on hiring demands; 19 reported using newspaper want ads; and 27 reported using at least one other approach, including working with industry groups, using others’ studies of local skills gaps, analyzing postings on Internet job sites, employer focus groups, and national studies. Grantees we visited commented that this process allowed the workforce investment boards to better understand industries and employers that employ higher skilled workers, with whom they had not previously had strong relationships. One grantee official noted that the grant had been useful in helping his organization look at broader labor market needs and focus on emerging trends, such as an anticipated shortage of nurses due to retirements. Another spoke of how this process helped to better understand the telecommunications/information technology industry. Several grantees noted that this grant gave them the opportunity to provide training that helped meet employers’ labor needs. Although the skill level of H-1B occupations is generally required to be at the bachelor’s degree level, the law governing the skill grants does not require that the grants, though funded with fees from H-1B workers’ employers, train at that same level. The goal of the skill grant programs was to provide technical skill training to workers, both for those who were employed as well as those who were unemployed. The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act that established the program does not refer to any particular occupations and did not elaborate on the nature of the training authorized. The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 did provide more specific direction, stating that this training is not limited to skill levels commensurate with a 4-year undergraduate degree, but should include preparing workers for a broad range of positions along a career ladder. Unlike some other fields, occupations in the IT field are difficult to classify as to the level of education degree they require. The Bureau of Labor Statistics in its Occupational Outlook Handbook has noted that some IT workers have a degree in computer science, mathematics, or information systems, while others have taken special courses in computer programming to supplement their study in other fields, such as accounting or other business areas. The National Workforce Center for Emerging Technologies has identified IT skill cluster titles and the education necessary for the occupations. For several of the occupations, workers can prepare academically with a range of training types, from a 1-year certificate program to a 4-year degree program. Labor, when issuing guidance in its solicitations for grant applications for various rounds, provided confusing language when describing the level of training that was appropriate. The solicitations state that the primary target served should be workers who can be trained and placed directly in the high-skill H-1B visa occupations. However, the solicitations also sometimes included other information that allowed training for lower level positions. For example: The first round’s solicitation also says grantees should reach out to high- and low-skilled workers to train for H-1B occupations related career paths. However, some grantees commented that raising a low-skilled worker to a baccalaureate level in the 2-year grant period could be difficult. The two most recent solicitations for applications mirror the change from the 2000 law. They state that the technical skills training is not limited to skill levels commensurate with a 4-year degree and should prepare workers for a broad range of positions along a career ladder. Although Labor’s solicitations were unclear as to the level of training that was acceptable, according to Labor officials, they avoided being overly prescriptive to allow grantees flexibility and encourage innovation. In addition, Labor stated that because this was a new program, it was difficult to determine where more clarification was needed until grantees began to ask similar questions. Labor did post some questions and answers about the H-1B skill grant program from two conferences for potential grant applicants on the H-1B Technical Skills Training Grant website. A Labor official also told us that Labor is developing a list of commonly asked grantee questions and answers to those questions, which should be posted in the near future. The 43 grantees from the first three rounds provided training for a range of levels of occupations. INS Adjudications Division staff, when asked to assess whether these occupations are equivalent to skill levels needed for H-1B positions, said that many of them could be acceptable H-1B positions, depending on the details of the job descriptions. The agency found that 25 (38 percent) of the 66 occupations in which training was provided could qualify for H-1B occupations, 30 (45 percent) would generally not qualify, and the remaining 11 occupations were too vague to be characterized either way. (See app. V for a full list of the occupations in which skill grant programs trained and INS’s assessment of how the occupations compared with H-1B occupations.) A few employers told us that in some cases the specific skills they needed could be obtained from an H-1B worker, or could be obtained by training a present employee, who already had some knowledge of processes, in specific higher-level skills. For example, a small nonprofit organization that had interviewed outside candidates, including an H-1B worker, for a networking position decided to use the skill grant funds to upgrade an employee’s skill sets instead. Similarly, the general manager at a manufacturing plant said that electronics technicians who were being upgraded to junior engineers would be able to do testing that previously was part of the responsibilities of senior engineers, some of whom were H-1B workers. Students receiving scholarship grants are enrolled in educational areas that prepare students for occupations frequently filled by H-1B visa holders, an indicator of national workforce needs. The law establishing the program stated that scholarship recipients must use the scholarship to enroll or continue enrollment at a school in order to pursue an associate, undergraduate, or graduate level degree in computer science, engineering, or mathematics. Although the students are pursuing a variety of specific course programs, such as automation robotics and actuarial science, their areas of study can be classified into broad categories as shown in figure 8. INS data on H-1B visa workers indicate that these majors would provide suitable training for positions these foreign workers often fill. As shown in table 1, the data on H-1B visa workers approved to begin work during fiscal year 2001, which reflect national workforce needs, indicate that 58 percent of them were for computer-related occupations. Training paid for in part by scholarship grants is for occupations with a similar level of complexity to those held by H-1B visa holders, who must have bachelor’s degrees or equivalent experience. Some students receiving scholarships are attending 2-year schools while others are in 4-year undergraduate programs or graduate programs. (About a quarter of the schools in the program are 2-year schools.) Some of those in 2-year programs plan to transfer into 4-year degree programs. For example, one program we visited at a 2-year community college was specifically preparing students for transfer to a nearby 4-year public university, a process that was simplified by the transfer agreements that the program advisor had arranged. While federal programs and initiatives are not coordinated to strategically address the national need for high-skill workers, local skill grant programs are more coordinated, though Labor has provided limited assistance to enhance these local efforts. There are multiple federal agencies and offices within agencies involved in efforts to address the need for high-skill workers, although coordination is limited. At the same time, local workforce officials said that as a result of implementing their skill grants they have increased coordination with partners and employers. Yet, skill grant representatives said they would have liked more assistance from Labor in obtaining information on companies needing H-1B workers and developing a national strategy to market the program. Labor and NSF provided few opportunities for grantees to share information and learn from each other. Multiple federal agencies and offices within agencies are involved in efforts to address shortages of high-skill workers and/or attract more students to high technology fields. Yet, these efforts are not focused on broadly coordinating across agencies to address national high-skill workforce needs in a strategic way. Within Labor, many of these efforts are discretionary grant programs operated by ETA through separate offices with limited coordination. For example, ETA’s Office of Policy and Research oversees the H-1B skill grant program, ETA’s Office of Adult Services oversees several discretionary grant programs that address employer skill shortages and a grant to the Information Technology Association of America to inform IT companies about the workforce investment boards’ role in local communities; and ETA’s Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor Services oversees a grant to expand apprenticeship in the IT occupational area. In addition to the H-1B scholarship program, the NSF has other programs aimed at attracting and retaining students in high-skill degree programs. The Department of Commerce’s Office of Technology Policy within the Technology Administration, the Department of Education’s Office of Vocational and Adult Education, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Health Resources and Services Administration, also have initiatives and programs to research and/or address areas of high-skill needs and shortages. (A list of some key programs and initiatives that have a component addressing the need for high-skill workers is shown in app. VI.) The lack of coordination between federal agencies was evidenced within the two grant programs funded with H-1B fees. The Labor-administered skill grants and NSF-administered scholarship grant programs have had little coordination across agencies to address broader needs. According to a NSF official, while programs such as the scholarship grants are complementary to Labor’s workforce programs, NSF’s primary link to the workforce system has been with the Department of Education. At the local level, some of the skill grant representatives said they did not know about the scholarship grants and some of the colleges with scholarship grants did not know about the skill grants. Yet, local grant representatives of both programs were interested in learning more about each other and it appeared that there were some areas where they could have benefited from more coordination. For example, one university official overseeing the scholarship program mentioned that she would like more information on the skill grants because of the many requests about training programs from students who have degrees but still need additional training to be more marketable to employers. Within Labor, ETA oversees the WIA adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs and has some other initiatives to address high-skill workforce needs in addition to the skill grants; however, these efforts are not linked together to build on the lessons being learned. For example, ETA assigned regional staff from the Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor Services (ATELS) to monitor the skill grants. ATELS also has a major initiative to develop apprenticeships in new and emerging industries such as IT and health care. Yet, according to a national ATELS official, a strong partnership between the skill grant program and ATELS did not develop, which could have led to building a broader infrastructure that connects the skill grants and apprenticeship efforts in high technology industries. A Labor official from the Division of One-Stop Operations within ETA said that a formal mechanism is not currently in place to share information among grant programs such as the skill grant program and other ETA grants and programs. However, these officials did say that the ETA leadership is interested in looking at the role of demonstration grants such as the skill grant program and how they fit into ETA’s ongoing employment and training programs. An example of this type of coordination was demonstrated by Labor’s Boston regional office that convened a series of 3 daylong conferences that focused on current worker training for H-1B grantees and other discretionary grants awarded by Labor. In addition, the Assistant Secretary of ETA recently announced the establishment of a Business Relations Group that will strive to better support business linkages with all components of the workforce system, such as apprenticeship programs and Job Corps. Labor involved Commerce in the skill grant program, as required by the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000, but these efforts were limited and not part of a more comprehensive strategy to address high-skill needs across agencies. Labor consulted with Commerce while developing the initial solicitation for grant application for the skill grant program. The 2000 act mandated that role by requiring that Labor consult with Commerce in awarding the grants and requiring Commerce to complete a study of public and private sector high-tech workforce training programs. Commerce staff also served on some of the skill grant application review panels. Yet, Commerce expressed frustration in trying to obtain information from Labor on the skill grant program for their report on workforce training programs. At the same time, Commerce is leading several major initiatives addressing IT employers and employees, which are independent of Labor’s workforce programs. While some federal agencies are taking steps to more broadly address high-skill workforce needs and skill shortages, no agency has taken the lead in coordinating across education, economic development and workforce development programs to strategically focus on high-skill needs. The Secretary of Labor established a “21st Century Workforce Initiative” that includes the Office of the 21st Century Workforce, created by executive order on June 20, 2001, to provide information and forums on workforce issues. However, these efforts address the broad workforce and are not focused specifically on high-skill needs. The Secretaries of Labor and Health and Human Services are also working on a Memorandum of Understanding to support joint efforts to address the nation’s nursing shortage. Within Labor’s ETA, there are some efforts to take a more strategic role in identifying skill shortfalls in a few key industries, notably health care and IT. Yet, these efforts tend to be limited largely to one agency or targeted to one industry, without building on the lessons being learned across programs and initiatives addressing high-skill needs. Local workforce board representatives and program officials reported that the skill grants helped them advance key goals of the WIA workforce system, such as coordinating with new partners beyond local boundaries, building relationships with more employers, and linking to the one-stop system; however, they would have liked more assistance from Labor to enhance these local efforts. Survey respondents reported working with one-third more employers with high-skill needs since receiving the H-1B grants. Some workforce officials said that the skill grants enabled them to work with employers that would not have accessed the WIA workforce system otherwise. We also spoke with some employers who said they had not known of the services available or worked with the WIA workforce system before this grant. At the same time, 10 of the grantees said they had difficulty obtaining data on H-1B visa applications to identify employers who used H-1B workers in their areas. A number of grantees contacted Labor, INS, state workforce agencies, and even congressional offices to attempt to track down this information. While some grantees got information from Labor, others did not. Almost a quarter of the grantees said they would like more assistance from Labor in obtaining information on companies hiring H-1B workers or networking with H-1B employers. A number of grantees suggested that it would be beneficial for Labor to develop a national strategy to market the H-1B grant program to employers and to facilitate discussions with national employers who use H-1B workers. One of the national employers who participated in a H-1B skill grant program expressed interest in replicating its experiences and sharing information on a national level. Almost all (40) of the grantees reported that the one-stop centers, which are the cornerstone of the WIA workforce system, had a role in the grant and in some cases, increased visibility as a result of the grant. For many of the grantees, the one-stop centers served multiple functions with the most common being recruiting/referring participants, followed by conducting intake/assessment, identifying job openings for participants, and matching participants to job openings/employers. One of the grantees that worked with employers to upgrade the skills of current workers said that they used the one-stop centers to help backfill the lower-level positions vacated by employees who got the H-1B training and moved into higher-level positions. One employer we interviewed, who was not aware of the publicly funded workforce system before the H-1B grant, expressed interest in using the screening services available through the local one- stop center after learning about these services through the grant. Local workforce officials also mentioned how these training programs helped support other efforts under WIA to strengthen the workforce system. For example the skill grants helped the workforce investment boards think beyond local boundaries to regional and employer territories and develop a model for employer-driven training that can also be applied to other programs, such as those funded by WIA. A number of grantees commented on how the H-1B grant enhanced their capacity to work with community colleges and other partners to provide innovative, higher-skills training. At the same time, some grantees requested more technical assistance from Labor in such areas as learning more about national efforts to develop and define career ladders. As one grantee noted, information on career ladders is available in different areas, but is hard to track down; information developed by efforts such as the National Skill Standards Board could be useful, but this information does not always make its way to the local level. For both the skill grant and scholarship grant programs, grant recipients thought they could have benefited from sharing more information with one another about lessons learned and promising practices. Yet, Labor and NSF provided few opportunities for this type of information exchange. Labor has established a website with relevant information for the H-1B grants, conducted an early study of the program and a second study of exemplary practices of H-1B skill grants, and convened two national meetings for H-1B skill participants. However, grantees do not have a mechanism for ongoing information exchange with each other. In our mail survey and through site visits with grantees, 13 of the grantees noted that they would like to have more opportunities to network and share information among grantees. Some of the local grantees formed informal networks to share information and have relied on each other for technical assistance. Officials at scholarship programs we visited also said that they would like the opportunity to exchange information and promising practices with other schools. NSF plans to convene a meeting of the scholarship program coordinators from all the colleges awarded NSF scholarship grants in the spring of 2003. The schools we visited commended NSF for distributing information about the program and responding to questions in a timely fashion through e-mail. The H-1B skill grant and scholarship grant programs are two key programs that train high-skill workers and help address employers’ concerns about skill shortages in the United States—particularly in IT and health care fields. The skill grant program’s flexibility allows training at high-skill levels, often in IT-related occupations, while the scholarship program attracts and encourages students to stay in degree programs in the computer science, engineering, or mathematics. Both programs respond to workforce shortages in either the local or national economies. Both programs have encountered challenges during their early implementation. Labor’s confusing guidance on the skill grant program has resulted in uncertainty about the type of training that should be provided. Further, Labor’s new reporting requirements, with the first quarterly report due September 30, 2002, do not require grantees to collect data on individual participants or the level of training being provided. Without these data, Labor cannot identify whom the program is serving or whether the training prepares participants for H-1B level jobs or career ladders leading to those jobs. This limits the ability of Labor to adequately assess the program’s effectiveness and limits the ability of Congress to determine whether the program is accomplishing its goals. The local scholarship grant programs struggled initially with recruiting enough students to fill all available spaces in their programs. However, it appears that this may no longer be a problem now that NSF broadened the program’s financial eligibility requirements. Skill and scholarship grantees have had limited opportunities for sharing information on best practices or how they overcame challenging problems. While Labor recently published a report on exemplary practices of H-1B training programs and has convened two national meetings of grantees, there is no mechanism for grantees to exchange information on lessons learned with each other on an ongoing basis. On the basis of our site visits, the scholarship program grantees also expressed interest in having the opportunity to share information with each other. The skill grant and scholarship programs could also benefit from better communication with one another. For example, local one-stop systems could have helped colleges with scholarship grants recruit potential students for the scholarship program. On the other hand, skill grant programs could have benefited by knowing of scholarship programs in their community, since they could be another resource for participants who had trained through the skill grant program but wanted to continue to work toward a college degree in computer science, engineering, or mathematics. While many efforts to train high-skill workers are underway by different agencies, these efforts are not coordinated across agencies to build on lessons learned and maximize their impact. The progress made at the local level by the skill grant program in building relationships with employers and identifying skills needed has broader implications for enhancing national efforts to meet high-skill needs. At the national level, Labor has initiated some promising efforts such as analyzing workforce needs in health care and IT, two industries in which employers have expressed concerns about labor shortages. In addition, the partnership between Labor and Health and Human Services to support joint efforts to address the nation’s nursing shortage is a positive example of bridging initiatives across agencies. While these efforts by Labor and other agencies are moving in the right direction, a more broad-based, comprehensive approach would help the United States address its high-skill labor needs in a more strategic way. To ensure that the skill grant program can assess its effectiveness and that information about grantees’ successful approaches are shared throughout the program, the Secretary of Labor should implement the new quarterly reporting requirements and expand these requirements to also include information on individual participants and the level of training that is being provided so they can better measure whether the program is achieving its goals and establish ongoing mechanisms to share successful strategies among grantees and encourage networking. To ensure that the scholarship program improves its ability to attract and retain students to computer science, engineering, and mathematics fields, the Director of NSF should establish mechanisms to share successful strategies and encourage networking among the postsecondary schools that are grantees. In addition, in a more overarching effort to be responsive to workforce development needs, the Secretary of Labor should be proactive in building a comprehensive approach within the Department and across federal agencies to address high-skill workforce needs across the country. The Department of Labor, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Commerce commented on a draft of this report (see apps. VII, VIII, and IX). In general, Labor agreed with our recommendations, although Labor believed that their new reporting requirements will be sufficient to provide needed information to evaluate the program. NSF generally agreed with the report, and provided technical comments. While Commerce raised concerns about the design of our study, Commerce did not take issue with our recommendations. Commerce was more interested in the recent grants awarded than in the implementation of the first three rounds of grant awards that was the focus of our study. The recent grant awards were so new that information was generally not available on participant characteristics or program operations. Because Congress asked us to focus our study on how H-1B programs are operating, we reviewed programs that were already in place. Overall, Commerce’s comments appear consistent with our findings that Labor has not collected sufficient data on the program to judge its effectiveness. The Department of Labor supported our recommendation that the Secretary of Labor take a proactive approach to addressing high-skill workforce needs across the country. Regarding the recommendation about reporting requirements, Labor pointed out that ETA has recently developed a standard format for the quarterly report. However, we believe that the new reporting requirements need to include additional information on participants’ demographic characteristics and the level of training to ensure that Labor and others can evaluate who is being served and how the training relates to occupations that H-1B visa workers fill. Labor concurred with our recommendation that the Department establish mechanisms for grantees to share successful strategies. In fact, Labor noted that ETA has provided grantees with two studies that include information about grantees’ best practices and also plans to provide additional technical assistance support to the H-1B program that will include information sharing. Commerce, in commenting on the draft, was critical of our decision to focus on the skill grants distributed in the first three rounds of grant awards and not on the more recent grantee selections. Commerce notes that the changes in the law in 2000 governing the skill grants and Labor’s program implementation and grantee selection have had an impact on the composition of the training offered. We focused our work on the first rounds of grants because we wanted to obtain information on how grantees were implementing programs. Grantees from the more recent awards begun in December 2001 could have provided little, if any, information on actual participants and training. Commerce was also concerned about our presentation of information on identifying the occupations for which grantees should be training. Commerce states that we drew conclusions by comparing labor condition application data and visa petition data from different years. Our report, however, does not compare these two sources of information, but rather points out that the most recent information available on H-1B visa petitions approved provides a different picture of H-1B workers’ occupations than was identified through the labor condition application data. Further, as we noted in the report, grantees began their analysis of workforce needs with data on H-1B occupations from labor condition applications, but their decisions about occupations in which to train were based on local labor market conditions and employers’ needs. Regarding our reporting on educational requirements for H-1B workers in IT occupations, Commerce commented that we failed to contrast others’ data on the high portion of workers in IT who have a bachelor’s or higher degree with the education profile of participants at grantees we surveyed. The education data we present on participants reflect their education profiles when they entered the programs. Participants may achieve degrees as a result of the training. Further, we believe that at the time of our survey it was too early to evaluate the number of degrees participants attained because many longer programs were not yet completed. We agree with Commerce’s comment that we provide limited information on the level of training being provided; however, this information is the most extensive data grantees could provide and was not available from any other sources prior to our study. Consequently, we have included a recommendation to Labor regarding data collection. Commerce also noted that individual duties could vary within the same occupational title. We recognize in the report that some occupation titles are vague, but believe that the INS analysis that we present is helpful to identify those occupations that could qualify as H-1B occupations, while recognizing that some are too vague to categorize. In addition, Commerce said we imply that a specific company’s training of junior engineers might reduce this firm’s need for an H-1B worker. This example was included to point out only that these workers trained with H-1B grants could perform some duties otherwise performed by an H-1B worker. Commerce also comments that we should have explored the implementation of the career ladder concept with grantees. Our discussions of career ladders focused on the level of training provided and led to our discussion in the report about grantees’ desire to have more assistance in developing and defining career ladders. Commerce also expressed some concerns regarding our review of the NSF scholarship program. However, the additional areas that they believe we should have explored, such as whether the scholarships are attracting students who would otherwise not have pursued degrees in these disciplines, would have required resource-intensive approaches, such as surveying schools and scholarship recipients, and were beyond the scope of this study. Because much information was available directly from NSF’s program database, we chose to rely on this participant data for our study. All three agencies provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, the Director of NSF, the Secretary of Commerce, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or Joan T. Mahagan at (617) 565-7532. Other key contributors to this assignment are listed in appendix X. We took several steps to determine how the skill grant and scholarship grant programs are being administered and the areas and skill levels in which they train. We judgmentally selected 12 grantees (see table 2) from the skill grant program to visit from the first 3 rounds (43 grants) funded within the skill grant program. Those selected represented various geographic locations; rural and urban service delivery; participation from all three grant rounds; and a mixture of areas of training. For each grant, we met with key individuals, such as representatives from the workforce investment boards and for most grants, employers, participants, and training providers. We discussed their objectives; their decisions on the occupational areas in which to train, level of training, and methods of delivering training; their outreach to potential training participants and employers; and their views on the benefits and challenges of operating these programs. We also surveyed all 43 of the round 1, 2, and 3 grantees to obtain specific data, such as the kinds of participants they were serving, the types of training they offered, and their sources for data on workforce needs. While all 43 grantees returned their surveys, as noted in the report, some could not provide information to all questions, particularly those requesting detailed participant demographics. Because this survey was sent to all 43 grant recipients, there is no sampling error, but the practical difficulties of administering any questionnaire may introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted by a survey respondent could introduce unwanted variability in the questionnaire’s results. We took steps in developing the questionnaire, the data collection, and the data editing and analysis to minimize nonsampling errors. (The survey instrument is provided in app. II.) We obtained Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Adjudications Division’s views on how the occupations for which the grant programs trained compared with H-1B visa workers’ occupations. In addition, we analyzed descriptions of programs funded with more recent skill grants. We also visited six colleges (see table 3) that received scholarship grants, selected to give us a mix of publicly funded and privately funded schools, 2-year and higher-degree granting schools, and geographic representation. We discussed with program officials their outreach to students, support services to students, and views on the benefits and challenges of the program. To obtain specific information on the grantees and students, we analyzed the National Science Foundation (NSF) database of participants and schools. To provide views on the overall programs and the extent to which these programs are coordinated with other workforce development programs designed to meet high-skill training needs, we discussed these programs with officials from the Department of Labor, NSF, the Department of Commerce, the National Association of Workforce Boards, and groups representing industry. We also performed an extensive Internet search to identify programs that key agencies are sponsoring to meet high-skill training needs. The survey mailed out to the 43 grantees that received skill grants in the first three funding rounds provided much data on those programs. The tables below provide data from the surveys beyond the data provided in the report. This table provides additional data on the students in the Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Scholarship Program. This table presents data on occupations for which the grantees train, as provided by the 43 grantees that received skill grants in the first three funding rounds. The following programs and initiatives were identified as having at least a component that addresses the need for high-skills in the following ways: training; education and scholarships; recruitment to high-skill fields; collaborative efforts within/among agencies; and resources and information related to high-skill areas. This list is not comprehensive, but serves as an illustration of various efforts and resources that currently exist. 21st Century Workforce Initiative–mission to ensure that all American workers have as fulfilling and financially rewarding a career as they aspire to have and make sure no worker gets left behind in the limitless potential of the dynamic, global economy of this new millennium. Office of the 21st Century Workforce–created by executive order June 20, 2001, to gather and disseminate information relating to workforce issues by conducting summits, conferences, meetings, and other appropriate forums. The executive order also established the President’s Council on the 21st Century Workforce to provide information and advice on issues affecting the 21st century workforce. A Memorandum of Understanding is under development between the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services to address issues such as the nursing shortage. H-1B Technical Skill Training Grants–provides grants for technical skills training to employed and unemployed individuals in occupations that are in employer demand. Grants are provided to local workforce investment boards, private industry councils or regional consortia, and to partnerships that consist of at least two businesses or a business- related nonprofit organization. Information Technology Industry Outreach Initiative–Grant awarded to the Computer Technology Industry Association in 5/01 and ends in 12/02–to expand apprenticeship in the IT occupational area. This includes developing and testing an IT apprenticeship model in five pilot sites and creating a structure to market and support IT apprenticeships. Serves as the One-Stop office within ETA (national and regional offices) for any issues related to WIA and provides support to state and local officials as they build One-Stop systems. Also fosters partnerships on workforce issues with other federal agencies such as the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs–provide three levels of services to adults 18 years and older. These services include: core services (job search and placement assistance, etc.); intensive services (comprehensive assessments, case management, etc.); and training services (occupational skill training, skill upgrading, etc.). Program/initiative Discretionary grants that relate to H-1 B skill grants: Information Technology Association of America Grant–conduct a series of targeted activities to inform IT companies about the role of workforce investment boards in local communities. Skills Shortages, Partnership Training/System Building Demonstration Program–awarded grants to 11 states and the District of Columbia to help establish regional partnerships to respond to employers’ identified skill shortages. Minority Colleges and Universities Workforce Partnerships and Training Strategies to Address Skill Shortages Demonstration Program–awarded grants to 13 minority colleges and universities to develop new systems to train workers for high-skill jobs in areas where companies are facing labor shortages. Incumbent/Dislocated Worker Skill Shortage II Demonstration Program–awarded grants to 19 communities to create projects or industry-led consortia to upgrade current workers, design/adapt training curricula in skill shortage occupational areas, and recruit/retrain workers in this area. Occupational Information Network–database accessible from any Web browser that contains comprehensive information on job requirements and worker competencies. Computer Science, Engineering and Mathematics Scholarships– grants to postsecondary schools that distribute the funds as scholarships for academically talented, low-income students in computer science, computer technology, engineering, engineering technology, or mathematics. Program for Gender Equity in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology–grants to support research, demonstration, and dissemination projects that broaden the participation of girls and young women in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education. Addresses middle school, high school, and undergraduate education. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program–planning and pilot grants to academic institutions to increase the number of students (U.S. citizens or permanent residents) pursuing and receiving associates or baccalaureate degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Noyce Scholarship Supplements–institutions of higher education that lead or are partnering in other NSF grants can receive supplemental funding for scholarships to encourage science, engineering, and mathematics majors and professionals to become K-12 mathematics and science teachers. Advanced Technological Education–grants to promote improvement in technological education at the undergraduate and secondary school levels by supporting curriculum development; preparation and professional development of college faculty and secondary school teachers; internships and field experiences for faculty, teachers, and students, and other activities. National Medal of Technology–presidential award to individuals, teams, or companies for accomplishments in the innovation, development, commercialization, and management of technology. First awarded in 1985. Review and study of high-tech workforce training programs in the United States–authorized by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000. Work Force Reports–The Digital Work Force: Building Infotech Skills at the Speed of Innovation—a report on the demand for highly skilled information technology workers and its August 2000 Update, and Digital Workforce State Data and Rankings. Go 4 IT! Web site–maintains this site to provide information on IT education, employment, and training programs. GetTech–partnership developed by the Department of Commerce’s Office of Technology Policy and the National Association of Manufacturer’s Center for Workforce Success to encourage young people, particularly those in middle school, to prepare for careers in mathematics, science, and technology. Manufacturing Extension Partnership–nationwide network of not-for- profit centers in over 400 locations nationwide to provide assistance to small and medium-sized manufacturers. If this assistance includes obtaining new equipment, these centers may provide training on the new equipment. Technology-Led Economic Development–Web site that identifies federal, state, and local initiatives related to technology-led economic development. Agency/office Department of Education Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) Preparing America’s Future–initiative that provides a framework to connect OVAE’s activities to support education reform and prepare the 21st century workforce. This effort organized three teams, High School Excellence Team; Community and Technical Colleges Team; and Adult Learning Team, to develop a coherent strategy for preparing America’s future with implications for policy and practice. Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act Amendments of 1998–provides federal funding for vocational and technical education programs and services to youth and adults. The majority of the funds are awarded as grants to state education agencies as State Basic Grants and Tech Prep Grants. Career clusters–established 16 broad career clusters that consist of entry level through professional-level occupations in a broad industry area. Each cluster includes academic and technical skills and knowledge needed for further education and careers. IT Career Cluster Initiative–partnership of the Education Development Center, Inc., the Information Technology Association of America, and the National Alliance of Business to create a national model and career cluster curricular framework for IT careers. This initiative is sponsored by the Department of Education and National School-to- Work Office. Community Technology Centers program–grants to create or expand community technology centers that will provide disadvantaged residents of economically distressed urban and rural communities with access to information technology and related training. Grants to address emerging nursing shortage include: Advanced Education Nursing Traineeship grants. Advanced Education Nurse Anesthetist Traineeship grants. Geriatric Nursing Knowledge and Experiences in Long-Term Care Facilities grants. Nurse Faculty Development in Geriatrics grants. Cooperative agreements for health workforce research—available for state or local governments, health professions schools, schools of nursing, academic health centers, community-based health facilities, and other appropriate public or private nonprofit entities, including faith-based organizations to conduct research that will contribute to (1) the development of information describing the current status of the health professions workforce and (2) analysis of fundamental health workforce related issues. Information Communications Technology Voluntary Partnership– sponsoring research for the development of skill standards and the potential alignment of industry-based certifications in the Information Technology and Telecommunications sector. In addition to those named above, Laura J. Heald, Carol L. Patey, and Tatiana Winger made important contributions to this report. Stuart M. Kaufman, Corinna A. Nicolaou, and Beverly Ross also provided key technical assistance.

Summary: In recent years, U.S. employers have complained of shortages of workers with higher-level skills in information technology, the sciences, and other fields. To find workers with these skills, employers often turn to foreign workers who enter the United States with H-1B visas to work in specialty occupations. Despite the recent economic downturn, employers report that they continue to need higher-skilled workers. Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to create a system connecting employment, education, and training services to better match workers to labor market needs. In 1998, Congress passed legislation raising limits on the number of high-skilled workers entering the United States and imposing a $500 fee on employers--which was later raised to $1000--for each foreign worker for whom they applied. Most of the money collected is to be spent on training that improves the skill of U.S. workers. The National Science Foundation (NSF) receives 22 percent of the funds to distribute as scholarship grants to post-secondary schools that distribute the funds as scholarships for low-income students in computer science, engineering, and mathematics degree programs. The grantees operating skill grant programs use the flexibility allowed by the Department of Labor to administer training through a variety of service delivery options to individuals whose skills need to be upgraded, whereas NSF's scholarship grant programs provide scholarships to low-income students for college degree programs. The training offered by the skill grant programs is based on local workforce needs, although sometimes for lower-skill jobs than those filled by H-1B visa holders, and the scholarship program's training is based on national workforce needs and the types of jobs that many H-1B visa holders fill. Although federal initiatives are not coordinated to strategically address high-skill needs at a national level, local skill grant programs increased coordination, though Labor provided limited assistance to enhance these efforts.