In 1998, Congress passed WIA—partly in response to concerns about inefficiencies in federal employment and training programs. WIA repealed the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), effective July 1, 2000, and replaced JTPA programs for economically disadvantaged adults and youths and dislocated workers with three new programs—WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and WIA Youth. In an effort that coordinated service delivery for employment and training programs, WIA established one-stop centers in all states and mandated that numerous programs provide their services through the centers. Unlike the JTPA adult program, WIA imposes no income eligibility requirements for adult applicants receiving any of its “core” services, such as job search assistance and employment counseling and assessment. Any person visiting a one-stop center may look for a job, receive career development services, and gain access to a range of vocational education programs. While WIA consolidated the JTPA youth programs and strengthened the service delivery of key workforce development programs, most employment and training programs remain separately funded and continue to be operated by various agencies. We have previously issued reports on overlap in multiple employment and training programs. During the 1990s, we issued a series of reports that documented program overlap among federally funded employment and training programs and identified areas where inefficiencies might result. We reported that overlap among federally funded employment and training programs raised questions about the efficient and effective use of resources. We also reported that program overlap might hinder people from seeking assistance and frustrate employers and program administrators. In 2000 and 2003, we reviewed the workforce development system and identified federally funded employment and training programs for which a key program goal was providing employment and training assistance. Our 2003 report identified 44 programs administered by nine federal agencies that provided a range of employment and training services. While many of the programs were the same as those included in the 2000 report, 10 programs were newly identified and 6 previously identified programs had been discontinued since 2000. The number of employment and training programs and their funding have increased since our 2003 report when we last reported on them. For fiscal year 2009, we identified 47 employment and training programs administered across nine agencies (see figure 1). Together, these programs spent approximately $18 billion on employment and training services in fiscal year 2009, according to our survey data. This is an increase of 3 programs and about $5 billion from our 2003 report. Adjusting for inflation, the amount of the increase is about $2 billion. We estimate based on survey responses that this increase is likely due to temporary funding from the Recovery Act for 14 of the 47 programs we identified (see figure 2). In addition to increasing funding for existing programs, the Recovery Act also created 3 new programs and modified several existing programs’ target population groups and eligibility requirements, according to agency officials. For example, the Recovery Act modified the Trade Adjustment Assistance program by expanding group eligibility to include certain dislocated service workers who were impacted by foreign trade. Officials from most programs reported using almost all their funds for employment and training, although some programs with broader goals, including multipurpose block grants, used lesser amounts. Twenty-seven programs estimated that they used 90 percent or more of their fiscal year 2009 appropriation on employment and training services. Fifteen of these programs reported that they used 100 percent of their funds on employment and training services. Some programs that used less than 90 percent of their fiscal year 2009 appropriations on employment and training services may have broader goals (see table 1). For example, across all programs, the TANF program used the lowest percentage of its appropriations on employment and training activities, about 8 percent. This is not surprising, given that employment is only one aspect of the TANF program, which has several broad social service goals, including providing cash assistance to low-income families with children. However, the amount TANF spends on employment and training activities is among the largest of the programs we surveyed. In addition, Education officials stated that their career and technical education programs emphasize education, as opposed to employment and training. Our survey data showed that 7 programs accounted for about three- fourths of the $18 billion spent on employment and training services in fiscal year 2009 (see figure 3). The largest of the 7, Rehabilitation Services—Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States, operated by Education, used about $3 billion in fiscal year 2009 to fund employment and training services for individuals with disabilities. The other 6 programs from this group are administered by Labor and HHS. The remaining one- fourth of the amount spent on employment and training in fiscal year 2009 was spent by the remaining programs. WIA Youth Activities (Labor) TANF (HHS) Job Corps (Labor) WIA Adult Program (Labor) Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities (Labor) Our survey data showed that most participants received employment and training services through one of two programs: Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities and the WIA Adult Program. These programs accounted for about 77 percent of the total number of participants served across all programs. Each of these programs reported serving more than 1 million individuals. In contrast to these larger programs, 7 programs each reported serving fewer than 5,000 individuals. See appendix IV for a detailed list of the number of individuals served by each employment and training program. Almost all programs tracked multiple outcome measures related to employment and training, and many programs tracked similar measures. Forty-one of the 47 programs tracked at least three outcome measures in fiscal year 2009, according to officials. The most frequently tracked outcome measure was “entered employment”—the number of program participants who found jobs (see table 2). Many programs also tracked “employment retention” and “wage gain or change.” These are the types of measures developed under the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) common measures initiative, which sought to unify definitions for performance across programs with similar goals. Three programs did not track any outcome measures at the federal level in fiscal year 2009. For a detailed list of outcome measures tracked by federal employment and training programs, see appendix V. In addition, officials from 4 of the 14 programs that received Recovery Act funding in fiscal year 2009 reported that the Act modified the outcome measures tracked by their programs. However, these modifications generally applied only to the outcomes for participants in activities funded by the Act. For example, a Job Corps official noted that the program is required to track the number of “green graduates” who complete Recovery Act-funded “green training” for jobs in industries such as renewable resources and green construction. Little is known about the effectiveness of the employment and training programs we identified because only 5 reported demonstrating whether outcomes can be attributed to the program through an impact study, and about half of all the programs have not had a performance review since 2004. Impact studies, which many researchers consider to be the best method for determining the extent to which a program is causing participant outcomes, can be difficult and expensive to conduct, as they take steps to examine what would have happened in the absence of a program to isolate its impact from other factors. Based on our survey of agency officials, we determined that only 5 of the 47 programs have had impact studies that assess whether the program is responsible for improved employment outcomes (see appendix VI). The five impact studies generally found that the effects of participation were not consistent across programs, with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts. For example, while we have previously reported that a considerable body of research has suggested that welfare-to-work programs can effectively increase employment entry and reduce welfare receipt, a more recent study cited by a TANF program official found services targeted at TANF recipients to be largely ineffective in producing positive employment retention and advancement outcomes and, where impacts were found, they tended to be substantively small, with many families remaining in poverty. A study of the WIA Adult program found the program to have shown positive impacts up to 4 years after participant entry, but noted that the magnitude of this effect could have been due to the selection of applicants with greater income prior to participation and better job prospects. Officials from the remaining 42 programs cited other types of studies or no studies at all. Officials from 19 of these programs reported that, since 2004, some other type of review or study had been conducted to evaluate their program’s performance with respect to employment and training activities. These evaluations included assessments by OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) and nonimpact studies. Officials from 23 of the 47 programs did not identify a study of any kind that assessed program performance since 2004. However, agencies may have impact studies currently under way. For example, Labor is conducting an impact evaluation of WIA services, to be completed in 2015. All but 3 of the programs we surveyed overlap with at least 1 other program, in that they provide at least one similar service to a similar population. Some of these overlapping programs serve multiple population groups, while others target specific populations. For the population groups served by these programs and the services they provide, see appendixes VII, VIII, and IX. In addition, some overlapping programs require participants to be economically disadvantaged. Even when programs overlap, the services they provide and the populations they serve may differ in meaningful ways. All 10 programs that serve multiple groups overlap with another program. For example, a variety of groups—including both employed and unemployed individuals—can receive employment counseling and assessment, job readiness skills training, and occupational or vocational training from three different programs: the Career and Technical Education—Basic Grants to States program, the Community-Based Job Training Grants program, and the H-1B Job Training Grants program. In addition, 3 of the programs that serve multiple groups require participants to be economically disadvantaged. Thirty-four of the 37 programs that serve a primary target population overlap with another program. In addition, nine of these require participants to be economically disadvantaged. The target populations being served by the most programs are Native Americans, veterans, and youth. For example, all 8 programs that target Native Americans provide seven similar types of employment and training services (see figure 4). According to agency officials, 4 of these programs for Native Americans spent a total of about $93 million on employment and training services in fiscal year 2009, and 5 of them served a total of about 55,000 participants in the most recent year for which data were available. Similarly, five of the six programs that target veterans provide seven similar types of employment and training services (see figure 5). According to agency officials, these six programs spent nearly $1.1 billion on employment and training services in fiscal year 2009, and served about 823,000 participants in the most recent year for which data were available. The five programs that target youth provide seven similar types of employment and training services (see figure 6). According to agency officials, four of these programs spent nearly $4.1 billion on employment and training services in fiscal year 2009, and all five programs served about 360,000 participants in the most recent year for which data were available. Despite this overlap, some individuals within a population group may be eligible for one program, but not another because program eligibility criteria differ. For example, one of the programs targeting Native Americans serves only disabled Native Americans residing on or near a federal or state reservation, and another program serves only Native Hawaiians. Similarly, one of the veterans programs serves only homeless veterans, and another is specifically targeted to servicemembers (and their spouses) who are near to retirement or separation from the military. Some overlapping programs also have slightly different objectives. For example, while the Community-Based Job Training Grants and H-1B Job Training Grants programs aim to prepare workers for careers in high- growth industries, the Career and Technical Education—Basic Grants to States program has as its purpose to more fully develop the academic, career, and technical skills of secondary and postsecondary students who enroll in career and technical education programs. Programs that overlap may also provide similar types of services in different ways. The Job Corps program, for example, provides academic instruction and job training in a variety of fields to at-risk youth who live at federally funded campuses, while the YouthBuild program provides academic instruction and job training in construction to disadvantaged youth in their own communities. Officials from 27 of the 47 programs reported that their agencies have coordinated efforts with other federal agencies that provide similar services to similar populations. For example, the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services issued a joint letter encouraging state- administered youth programs to partner together using Recovery Act funds to promote subsidized employment opportunities. In addition, an official from the Department of the Interior reported that the agency works with Labor and HHS to coordinate programs for Native Americans. Under law, Native American tribes are allowed significant flexibility to combine funding from multiple programs. An official from an Education program that serves incarcerated individuals noted that representatives from the Departments of Education, Labor, and Justice participate in a federal work group on offender workforce development, and have jointly sponsored a national conference on this topic. Similarly, an official from Labor’s Reintegration of Ex-Offenders program stated that the agency coordinates with Justice to design and operate the program’s adult ex- offender grants. The TANF, ES, and WIA Adult programs provide some of the same employment and training services to low-income individuals, despite differences between the programs. Although the extent to which individuals receive the same services from more than one of these programs is unknown, the programs maintain separate administrative structures to provide some of the same services. Labor and HHS officials acknowledged that greater efficiencies could be achieved in delivering employment and training services through these programs, but said they do not believe that these programs are duplicative. The TANF, ES, and WIA Adult programs provide some of the same employment and training services to low-income individuals, despite differences in the programs’ overall goals and the range of services they provide. In our interviews with Labor and HHS officials, they acknowledged that low-income individuals are eligible to receive some of the same employment and training services—including skills assessment, job search, and job referral—from both the TANF and WIA Adult programs. In addition, any individual, including low-income individuals, can receive job search and job referral services from the ES program. Our survey results also indicate that these three programs provide some of the same services (see figure 7). While the TANF program serves low-income families with children, the ES and WIA Adult programs serve all adults, including low-income individuals. Specifically, the WIA Adult program gives priority for intensive and training services to recipients of public assistance and other low-income individuals when program funds are limited. All three programs share a common goal of helping individuals secure employment, and the TANF and WIA Adult programs also aim to reduce welfare dependency. However, employment is only one aspect of the TANF program, which also has three other broad social service goals: to assist needy families so that children can generally be cared for in their own homes, to reduce and prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. As a result, TANF provides a wide range of other services beyond employment and training, including cash assistance. To reduce dependency, TANF requires many cash assistance recipients to participate in work activities such as subsidized employment, on-the-job training, or community service. Recent PART reviews of these programs had similar findings regarding the programs’ commonalities. The most recent PART reviews of the ES and WIA Adult programs—conducted in 2004 and 2005, respectively—also found that these programs provide some of the same services, and the WIA Adult review found that the program duplicates some job training services offered by TANF. The most recent PART review of the TANF program, conducted in 2005, similarly noted that states may choose to spend TANF funds on employment services that mirror those provided under WIA. However, the extent to which individuals receive the same employment and training services from more than one of these programs is unknown. Labor officials estimated that in program year 2008 approximately 4.5 percent of all WIA Adult participants who received training—about 4,500 of the nearly 100,000 participants who exited the program—were also receiving TANF. However, this likely underestimated the number of TANF recipients served by the WIA Adult program, as the program collects information on TANF receipt only if participants receive intensive or training services. In addition, according to Labor officials, WIA Adult participants may choose not to identify themselves as TANF recipients. It is also unclear whether the WIA Adult participants who self-identify as TANF recipients have received TANF employment and training services or other TANF services. Further, HHS officials told us that data are not available at the federal level on the total number of individuals who receive TANF employment and training services because HHS lacks the legal authority to require such reporting. The TANF program requires states to report data on recipients of TANF assistance who participate in work activities as defined by program regulations, but HHS lacks the legal authority to require states to report data on individuals who participate in work activities but do not receive such assistance. Officials noted that laws including the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)—the legislation that created the TANF program—limits the information that states must report to HHS. The TANF, ES, and WIA Adult programs maintain separate administrative structures to provide some of the same services to low-income individuals. At the federal level, the TANF program is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, and the ES and WIA Adult programs are administered by the Department of Labor. At the state level, the TANF program is typically administered by the state human services or welfare agency, and the ES and WIA Adult programs are typically administered by the state workforce agency. By regulation, ES services must be provided by state employees. At the local level, WIA regulations require at least one comprehensive one-stop center to be located in every local workforce investment area. These areas may have the same boundaries as counties, may be multicounty, or may be within and across county lines. Similarly, every county typically has a TANF office. TANF employment and training services may be delivered at TANF offices, in one-stop centers, or through contracts with for-profit or nonprofit organizations, according to HHS officials. In one-stop centers, ES staff provide job search and other services to ES customers, while WIA staff provide job search and other services to WIA Adult customers. Labor and HHS officials acknowledged that greater efficiencies could be achieved in delivering employment and training services through the TANF, ES, and WIA Adult programs. A 2005 Labor-commissioned study stated that operating separate workforce programs under WIA and TANF duplicates efforts. In interviews, Labor officials acknowledged that simplifying programs’ administrative structures, while not without challenges, may allow some states and localities to administer programs more efficiently. Even so, officials from both agencies emphasized that under current law states and localities decide how best to deliver services. For example, since TANF is a block grant program, states have discretion to deliver services under the type of administrative structure they choose, and some states may choose more efficient structures than others. Nonetheless, HHS and Labor officials said they do not believe that these programs are duplicative. HHS officials said that capacity, geography, and the unique needs of TANF clients could warrant having multiple entities providing the same services, even if they are separately administered. They noted that one-stop centers may not have the staff, space, or desire to serve TANF clients; they may be inconveniently located, especially in predominantly rural states; and they may not be able to address TANF clients’ multiple needs. HHS officials added that although some of the employment and training services delivered by the TANF, ES, and WIA Adult programs at the local level to eligible clients are the same, the ways services are delivered and the services themselves can vary subtly with each locality. Labor officials said they have focused on integrating services to meet clients’ needs and affording states flexibility to respond to local needs rather than only on program efficiency. Labor officials also noted that the ES and WIA Adult programs are specific funding streams and as a result, they are unlikely to fund the same services for the same individuals. For example, one-stop centers typically use ES funding to provide core services, such as job search and job referrals, while they typically use WIA Adult funding to provide intensive and training services. States are required by WIA to attest in plans they provide to Labor that their ES and WIA programs have agreements in place to coordinate service delivery across the two programs. Colocating the employment and training services provided by the TANF, ES, and WIA Adult programs may increase administrative efficiencies. WIA requires numerous federally funded workforce development programs, including the ES and WIA Adult programs, to provide their services through the one-stop system. Programs may be colocated within one-stop centers, electronically linked, or linked through referrals. While WIA does not require TANF employment and training services to be provided through one-stop centers, states and localities have the option to include TANF as a partner in their one-stop systems. We have previously reported that colocating services—specifically, providing services from different programs in the same physical location—can result in improved communication among programs, improved delivery of services for clients, and elimination of duplication. While colocating services does not guarantee efficiency improvements, it affords the potential for sharing resources and cross-training staff, and may lead, in some cases, to the consolidation of administrative systems, such as information technology systems. A 2004 study commissioned by HHS found that successful coordination between WIA programs and the TANF program is promoted when WIA and TANF staffs are colocated or communicate regularly to discuss specific cases and policies, and when program management functions, case management functions, and administrative systems are shared across agencies. Labor and HHS officials told us that they encourage states to consider colocating TANF employment and training services with ES and WIA Adult services in one-stop centers, but said that they leave these decisions up to states. While Labor’s policy is that all mandatory one-stop partner programs—including the ES and WIA Adult programs—should be physically colocated in one-stop centers to the extent possible, neither Labor nor HHS currently has a policy in place that specifically promotes the colocation of TANF employment and training services in one-stop centers. According to officials, Labor’s policy is that colocation is one of multiple means for achieving service integration. While ES and WIA Adult services are generally colocated in one-stop centers, the colocation of TANF employment and training services in one- stop centers is not as widespread. We reported in 2007 that nearly all states provided ES and WIA Adult services on site in the majority of their one-stop centers, although nine states also operated at least one standalone ES office that was unaffiliated with the one-stop system. In the same 2007 report, we found that 30 states provided the TANF program on site at a typical comprehensive one-stop center. These states accounted for 57 percent of the comprehensive one-stop centers nationwide (see table 3). The remaining 20 states, where the TANF program was not available on site at a typical comprehensive one-stop center, accounted for 43 percent of comprehensive one-stop centers. This is the most recent available data, as Labor and HHS officials told us that they do not routinely collect data on the extent to which TANF services are colocated in one-stop centers nationwide, and HHS lacks the authority to require states to routinely report this information. Labor and HHS officials said that states and localities may face challenges to colocating TANF employment and training services in one-stop centers. Obstacles to colocation may include those raised earlier, such as capacity and geography, but may also include leases, differing program cultures, the need for partner programs to help fund the operating costs of one-stop centers, and trade-offs regarding the services with which TANF is colocated. Specifically, HHS officials told us that states and localities may have multiyear rental contracts for office space and may not have room to house additional staff. In addition, Labor and HHS officials said that differences between the client service philosophies of the TANF program and the ES and WIA Adult programs may present challenges to colocation. HHS officials noted that the TANF program takes a more holistic approach to helping individuals become self-sufficient by addressing the variety of needs that may affect their ability to obtain employment, such as child care and transportation. The need for partner programs to fund one-stop center operating costs may also be a challenge to colocation. When TANF employment and training services are colocated in one-stop centers, TANF may be expected to contribute to these operating costs, in addition to paying operating costs associated with providing other TANF services in other locations. Finally, HHS officials noted that when TANF employment and training services are not colocated in one-stop centers, they are typically colocated with other services for low-income families, such as SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, and Medicaid. Officials acknowledged that colocating TANF employment and training services in one-stop centers may mean that they are no longer colocated with these other services, although Florida, Texas, and Utah provide SNAP services through one-stops along with TANF services, and Utah also provides Medicaid through one-stops. Officials said that in states where this is not the case, the potential trade-off would need to be considered. Legislative proposals to make TANF a mandatory partner in the one-stop system have been introduced but have not been made into law. In the 109th Congress, the WIA reauthorization bills passed by the House and the Senate included provisions to make TANF a mandatory partner, which would have required TANF employment and training services to be provided through one-stop centers nationwide. However, WIA has not yet been reauthorized, and according to Labor officials, the Administration has not taken a position on whether TANF should be a mandatory partner. Nevertheless, officials told us that about half of states have made TANF a partner in their one-stop systems. In addition, about half of states used TANF funds to pay for a portion of their one-stop center infrastructure costs in program year 2005. Consolidating the administrative structures of the TANF, ES, and WIA Adult programs may increase efficiencies and reduce costs. However, we found that data on the cost savings associated with such consolidation initiatives are not readily available. Florida, Texas, and Utah have consolidated the state workforce and welfare agencies that administer the TANF, ES, and WIA Adult programs, among other programs. In Utah, the workforce agency administers the TANF program in its entirety. In Florida and Texas, the workforce agencies administer only that part of TANF related to employment and training services. In all three states, the one-stop centers serve as portals to a range of social services, including TANF. Officials from these three states told us that consolidating agencies led to cost savings through the reduction of staff and facilities. For example, a Utah official said that the state reduced the number of buildings in which employment and training services were provided from 104 to 34. According to a Texas official, Texas also privatized 3,000 full-time staff equivalents (FTE) at the local level, which reduced the pension, retirement, and insurance costs that had previously been associated with these state positions. Officials in the three states, however, could not provide a dollar figure for the cost savings that resulted from consolidation. Additionally, Labor and HHS officials told us that reliable data are not available to compare the states’ costs for serving TANF, ES, and WIA Adult participants with average costs nationwide. These three programs do not require states to report data on costs per participant, and the state officials we spoke with said that the data they could provide would not be comparable with other states. State officials also told us that consolidation improved the quality of services for participants in the WIA Adult and TANF programs. An official in Utah noted the consolidation allowed job seekers to apply for assistance they had not considered in the past; allowed employment counselors to cluster services that made sense for the client; and allowed clients to experience seamless service delivery. These benefits reflected what the official said was one of the visions of consolidation: having one employment plan per client, rather than multiple employment plans for clients served by multiple programs. While Florida officials acknowledged that a subset of TANF clients have significant barriers to employment— such as mental health issues—that one-stop centers may not be well equipped to address, officials said that the one-stops in their state are able to address the employment and training needs of the majority of TANF clients. When asked about the quality of the TANF and workforce programs in Florida, Texas, and Utah, Labor officials were not aware of any performance problems in these programs and added that they view all three states as forerunners in program improvement efforts. That said, they noted that Utah may not be representative of other states, due to its relatively small and homogenous population. According to HHS officials, the three states all met federal work participation rate requirements in 2008, but there is no established means for comparing the employment performance of state TANF programs, so it is not possible to determine whether these states are more or less effective than other states in accomplishing the employment goals of TANF. In addition, officials from the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) said that Texas and Florida may place more of an emphasis on quickly finding work for TANF clients than other states. Even with the benefits identified by state officials, consolidation may have its challenges. An official in Utah noted that the reorganization of state agencies and staff was time-consuming and costly, and it took several years before any cost savings were realized. For example, developing a shared database across programs increased costs temporarily. In addition, when states consolidate their agencies, they must still follow separate requirements for TANF and WIA. A 2004 article on service integration by authors from CLASP and the Hudson Institute concluded that states can take significant steps under current law to integrate TANF and WIA services, but it also noted the difficulty in administering separate programs with different requirements. The article specifically noted differences in work requirements, program performance measures, and reporting requirements, among others. A Utah official said that it was important for program administrators to be knowledgeable about these separate reporting requirements and processes across the multiple federal agencies that oversee these programs. Similarly, this official said that direct service staff needed to be knowledgeable about multiple programs and how to allocate costs across these programs. For states that have not consolidated their workforce and welfare agencies, not knowing what actions are allowable under the law may present a challenge to consolidation. According to the article on service integration, states face some legal barriers to fully integrating TANF and WIA services, but if they do not know what is allowable under the law, they may not always exercise the full range of options available to them. To the extent that colocation and consolidation would reduce administrative costs, funds could potentially be available to serve more clients or for other purposes. States spend a part of each program’s federal appropriation on administration. For the TANF program, we estimate that states spent about $160 million to administer employment and training services in fiscal year 2009. As defined in regulation, TANF administrative costs include costs for general program administration and coordination, such as salaries and benefits for staff performing administrative and coordination activities, and indirect administrative costs that support these activities. Administrative costs do not include salaries and benefits for staff providing program services or the direct administrative costs associated with providing these services, such as supplies, equipment, travel, postage, utilities, and rental and maintena of office space. According to a Labor official, the administrative costs for the WIA Adult program—defined in regulations to include costs for general program administration and coordination, including relate d oversight and monitoring, and excluding costs related to the directprovision of workforce investment services—were at least $56 million in program year 2009. t data on the administrative costs associated with the ES program, as the are not a separately identifiable cost in the legislation. Labor officials said that, on average, the agency spends about $4,000 for each WIA Adult participant who receives training services. Depending on the re administrative costs associated with colocation and consolidation, these funds could be used to train potentially hundreds or thousands of additional individuals. This is particularly important for programs like the WIA Adult program where federal funding has decreased overall from fiscal years 1999 to 2008. Even in the one-stop service delivery environment set forth in WIA, states and localities have substantial flexibility in determining the administrative structures they use to deliver employment and training services. The TANF block grant similarly gives states and localities considerable flexibility in delivering services, including employment and training services. This administrative flexibility allows programs to deliver services in a way that best meets local needs. Program year 2009 ran from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. These costs do not include Recovery Act funds, which also could have been used for administrative costs. However, in the face of increasingly constrained budgets at both the federal and state levels, this is an opportune time to explore options for administrative cost savings. Our work on the WIA Adult, ES, and TANF programs has shown that there is some duplication with regard to their administrative structures—they maintain the means to provide some of the same services to the same population. However, the flexibility afforded these programs under the law allows them to take steps to integrate services that may increase administrative efficiencies. In taking such steps, it is important to recognize that improvements in administrative efficiency may not necessarily result in improvements in program effectiveness. Given that the ES and WIA Adult programs are already colocated in most one-stop centers, colocating TANF employment and training services with these programs provides the most immediate opportunity for efficiency improvements. However, achieving the potential benefits of colocation may require states and localities to address a variety of challenges: how to serve additional clients given the limited capacity of one-stop centers and potential lease restrictions; how to navigate philosophical differences between programs and address the multiple needs of TANF clients in the one-stop center setting; how to ensure that services are geographically accessible; whether the potential benefits of colocating TANF in one-stop centers outweigh the potential costs of no longer colocating these services with other services for low-income families, in some cases; and whether, and to what extent, TANF will contribute to one-stop center operating costs. However, these challenges are not insurmountable, given that over half of the states offer TANF services on site at a typical one-stop center. Similarly, consolidating the administrative structures of these programs would potentially conserve resources and better serve customers by providing the one-stop convenience established by WIA. Florida, Texas, and Utah have taken the initiative to consolidate their state workforce and welfare agencies, and report that they reduced administrative costs and improved services for job seekers. However, consolidation is not without challenges. In particular, states that have not yet consolidated their workforce and welfare agencies may not know how to integrate services in a way that is allowable under the law. While states and localities have undertaken some potentially promising initiatives to achieve greater administrative efficiencies, a major obstacle to further progress on this front is that little information is available about the strategies and results of these initiatives, including improvements to services and reductions in costs. Thus, it is unclear to what extent practices in these states could serve as models for others. In addition, little is known about the incentives states and localities have to undertake such initiatives and whether additional incentives may be needed. To facilitate further progress by states and localities in increasing administrative efficiencies in employment and training programs, we recommend that the Secretaries of Labor and HHS work together to develop and disseminate information that could inform such efforts. This should include information about: state initiatives to consolidate program administrative structures; and state and local efforts to colocate new partners, such as TANF, at one-stop centers. Information on these topics could address challenges faced, strategies employed, results achieved, and remaining issues. As a part of this effort, Labor and HHS should examine the incentives for states and localities to undertake such initiatives and, as warranted, identify options for increasing such incentives. We provided the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, HHS, the Interior, Justice, Labor, Veterans Affairs, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the opportunity to comment on a draft of this report. Written comments from Education, HHS, and Labor appear in appendixes XII, XIII, and XIV. In addition to the comments discussed below, Education, HHS, Interior, Labor, and VA provided technical comments that we incorporated where appropriate. Agriculture, Defense, EPA, and Justice officials stated that they had no comments. Labor concurred with our recommendation and said that while it continues to work with its federal partners to ensure access to services, more can be done to disseminate information to the workforce and social service communities. It highlighted the uniqueness of its programs and noted that WIA provides flexibility to states and local areas. HHS agreed that states would benefit from the department developing and disseminating information in accordance with our recommendation and said it shared the view that it is important to minimize duplication, maximize administrative efficiency, and develop service structures that ensure that individuals in need receive appropriate and effective employment services. HHS noted that it lacks legal authority to mandate increased TANF-WIA coordination or to create incentives for such efforts, cautioned against the assumption that doing so would necessarily result in cost savings, and noted that some overlap is necessary and appropriate in order to provide coordinated and more comprehensive services. It also said that while there is much to learn from the experience of Florida, Texas, and Utah, there is no evidentiary basis from which it can confidently state that the performance of these states is either better or worse than states with less integration. We revised the report to add additional references to HHS’s limited legal authority and noted the Department’s perspective on the success of states’ integration efforts. HHS recommended that we clearly distinguish between employment and training programs and broad, multipurpose block grants that have multiple allowable uses, including employment and training and said that it is not accurate to count multipurpose block grants as employment and training programs. While we agree that multipurpose block grant programs have uses other than employment and training, each program we included in our study had an important component related to employment and training and met our definition of an employment and training program. To clarify the report, we modified it to say that multipurpose block grants with broader missions are included in our list of programs. HHS also recommended that the report provide data on total spending for employment and training for a set of years, rather than only comparing 2002 to 2009, because Recovery Act spending in 2009 was a year with exceptional circumstances in terms of funding. While we did not collect spending data for fiscal years 2003 through 2007, our report provides spending data for another year prior to passage of the Recovery Act— fiscal year 2008 (see figure 2). We also attributed the increase in funding for these programs since our 2003 report to the temporary funding provided by the Recovery Act. In its comments, Education recommended that we exclude from the report all programs authorized by the Perkins Act (a total of five programs) because the primary purpose of these programs is increasing students’ academic, career, and technical skill levels. Education disagreed with our rationale for including these programs and stated that the statutory amendments that Congress made in 2006 during the last reauthorization broadened the educational purposes of the Perkins Act to emphasize placing students in further education. During the course of our data collection, Education officials had informed us that programs met our definition of an employment and training program, but later asked us to remove the programs when they reviewed the draft report. While we agree that these programs have an educational purpose, we maintain that each of these programs meets our definition of an employment and training program, based on information provided to us by Education. For example, Education officials reported that the five programs provide various types of employment and training services, including some that were categorized as primary services, such as occupational or vocational training, or on-the- job training (see appendix IX). Education officials also reported that three of these five programs track entered employment and all five programs track credential attainment as outcome measures (see appendix V). Education also recommended that for programs authorized by the Perkins Act we delete from our report all estimates of funds used on employment and training activities and of the number of participants who received employment and training services. We revised the report to delete this information because Education said the data it reported to us were not accurate and could not be reliably estimated. As agreed 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 Agriculture, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Education, Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of the Interior, Attorney General, Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and appropriate congressional committees. This report will be made available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or Sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix XV. We identified federally funded employment and training programs by reviewing the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA), the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), and interviewing agency officials. Using keywords related to employment and training, we conducted a systematic search in the CFDA to identify potential employment and training programs. In addition, to identify potential employment and training programs that were expanded under the Recovery Act, we searched the CFDA to identify programs that received Recovery Act funding. We reviewed the Recovery Act and interviewed agency officials to identify any other potential employment and training programs that were not included in the CFDA. From this search, we identified 100 potential employment and training programs. We did not conduct a legal analysis in order to identify the programs or to determine their objectives, requirements, or goals. We gathered additional information about the programs identified in our search to determine whether they should be included in our review. Using the CFDA program listings, we gathered information about program objectives, restrictions on the use of program funding, and program funding levels. To gather further information to assist us in making a determination, we reviewed program fact sheets and other relevant information available on agency Web sites. When necessary, we also met with agency officials to discuss programs in more detail. We limited our initial list of 100 programs to those that are specifically designed to enhance the specific job skills of individuals in order to increase their employability, identify job opportunities, and/or help job seekers obtain employment. We included programs with broader missions if a primary purpose of the program was to provide employment and training assistance. We excluded any programs that met one or more of the following criteria: Program objectives do not explicitly include helping job seekers enhance their job skills, find job opportunities, or obtain employment. Program does not provide employment and training services itself. Program is small or is a component of a larger employment and training program such as a pilot or demonstration program. Many of the excluded programs can be grouped into the following categories: Economic development programs that aim to increase job opportunities but do not provide services to individuals to enhance their job skills, identify job opportunities, or find employment. Programs that aim to achieve broad workforce-related goals, such as increasing educational opportunities for minority individuals in particular fields or improving the status of and working conditions for wage-earning women, but do not provide employment or training services themselves. Education programs that fund student loans for educational expenses, initiatives for student recruitment and retention, or other student support services. Programs that support training for training providers, such as vocational rehabilitation specialists who assist disabled individuals seeking employment, or other programs that support job-specific training for individuals who are already employed rather than provide training for the general public. This process led to 52 programs being initially included in our review. Forty-nine of these programs were operational in fiscal year 2009, while 3 of them were created by Recovery Act and were not operational in fiscal year 2009. As a result, we removed those three programs from our list. Once our determinations were made, we sent e-mails to agency liaisons asking them to confirm the list of programs to be included in and excluded from our review and the names and contact information for the officials who would be responsible for completing the questionnaire. When requesting confirmation, we asked that the list be reviewed by the agency office that would ultimately comment on our draft report. Agencies confirmed our final inclusion and exclusion decisions. After deploying our questionnaire, officials provided us with new information on two programs—the Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Wilson/Fish program and the Indian Job Placement—United Sioux Tribes Development Corporation program. After reviewing this information, we determined that these programs did not meet our definition of an employment and training program and we excluded them from our review. In addition, Department of Education officials said that five of their programs should be excluded from our list, even though they had confirmed the list at the outset and completed the questionnaire. They said the programs focused on education and training and had broader goals than employment. We did not exclude these programs because each one has an important component related to employment and training and met our definition. See Table 4 for a full list of excluded programs. At the end of this process, we had confirmed that 47 programs met our definition and should be included in our review. We developed a Web-based questionnaire to collect information on federal employment and training programs. The questionnaire included questions on objectives, eligibility requirements, appropriations levels, the amount of funds used to provide employment and training services, program services, population groups served, and outcome measures. In addition, to gauge whether the Recovery Act modified programs, we developed questions that asked respondents to identify the amount of appropriations that the Recovery Act provided and whether the Recovery Act modified program objectives, target populations, program activities, and outcome measures. To minimize errors arising from differences in how questions might be interpreted and to reduce variability in responses that should be qualitatively the same, we conducted pretests with six federal officials over the telephone. To ensure that we obtained a variety of perspectives on our questionnaire, we selected officials from multiple agencies within the Departments of Education and Labor, the two departments with the largest number of programs. Based on feedback from these pretests, we revised the questionnaire in order to improve question clarity. For instance, in response to a Department of Education official’s comment that it was unclear whether our budget-related questions pertained to federal or state funding, we modified the budget-related questions to clarify that we were asking for information on federal funding only. We conducted an additional pretest with budget staff from the Department of Labor to ensure that the budget-related terms used in the questionnaire were understandable. After completing the pretests, we administered the survey. On June 18, 2010, we sent an e-mail announcement of the questionnaire to the agency officials responsible for the programs selected for our review, notifying them that our online questionnaire would be activated within a week. On June 23, 2010, we sent a second e-mail message to officials in which we informed them that the questionnaire was available online and provided them with unique passwords and usernames. We made telephone calls to officials and sent them follow-up e-mail messages, as necessary, to clarify and gain a contextual understanding of their responses. We received completed questionnaires from 47 programs, for a 100 percent response rate. For three programs that were created by the Recovery Act that were not operational in fiscal year 2009, we sent a list of questions to officials responsible for these programs in which we asked them to provide information on the program objectives, the population groups that would be served, and the types of services that would be provided. We used standard descriptive statistics to analyze responses to the questionnaire. Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. To minimize other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors, and to enhance data quality, we employed recognized survey design practices in the development of the questionnaire and in the collection, processing, and analysis of the survey data. For instance, as previously mentioned, we pretested the questionnaire with federal officials to minimize errors arising from differences in how questions might be interpreted and to reduce variability in responses that should be qualitatively the same. We further reviewed the survey to ensure the ordering of survey sections was appropriate and that the questions within each section were clearly stated and easy to comprehend. To reduce nonresponse, another source of nonsampling error, we sent out e-mail reminder messages to encourage officials to complete the survey. In reviewing the survey data, we performed automated checks to identify inappropriate answers. We further reviewed the data for missing or ambiguous responses and followed up with agency officials when necessary to clarify their responses. For selected large programs, we reviewed information on agency Web sites, prior GAO reports, and pertinent regulations and laws to corroborate the budgetary and program services information reported in the questionnaire. On the basis of our application of recognized survey design practices and follow- up procedures, we determined that the data were of sufficient quality for our purposes. To identify areas of overlap among employment and training programs, we reviewed prior GAO reports and information reported by federal agency officials in our survey. Based on our prior work, we determined that overlap occurs when programs provide at least one similar service to a similar population. After reviewing survey responses regarding the primary population groups served by programs and the services they provide, we categorized programs according to the primary population group served and identified programs within each category that provide similar services. In order to report the survey results in a logical and consistent manner, we combined or expanded some of the population group categories used in the survey and also made changes to the primary population group served by some programs. To identify areas of potential duplication across programs, we applied a multiphase selection process to identify a few programs for more in-depth analysis. The starting point of the selection process was the assumption that the potential for duplication is greatest when programs have similar eligibility requirements and provide similar services to the same population groups to achieve similar objectives. First, we categorized programs according to the primary population group served and consulted program descriptions from the CFDA to select those programs from each category that have similar eligibility requirements. Next, we evaluated the services provided by programs, based on the findings of our 2003 review, to select those programs from each primary population group category that provide similar services. Third, based on the assumption that duplication is more likely to occur among programs administered across different agencies, we selected the primary population group categories that contained programs administered by more than one federal agency. The programs within these categories were selected for the next step of our selection process. Using the CFDA program descriptions, we reviewed the objectives of the remaining programs to select those programs with similar objectives. Finally, we reviewed program financial data from our 2001 review to select three programs that were among the largest programs in terms of the amount spent on employment and training services—the Department of Labor’s WIA Adult Program, Labor’s Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities Program, and the Department of Health and Human Service’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. Each of these programs spent between $750 million and about $1 billion on employment and training services in fiscal year 1999, the time period assessed in our 2001 review. To determine the extent of duplication across these programs, we interviewed federal agency officials, state officials, officials from other organizations, and obtained additional information. When meeting with agency officials, we discussed each program’s structure including service locations, staffing levels and staff responsibilities, and coordination efforts with agencies that provide similar programs. In addition, we obtained documentation regarding the administrative costs associated with providing employment and training services. We reviewed relevant reports and interviewed officials from three organizations familiar with these programs—the Center for Law and Social Policy, the American Public Human Services Association, and the National Governors Association—to obtain their perspectives on the extent of duplication across the three selected programs. We also reviewed documentation and conducted interviews with officials in Florida, Texas, and Utah, three of the states that are considered to be the furthest along in their efforts to consolidate the administrative structures for these and other programs. To analyze the studies identified by survey respondents as impact and performance evaluations of the 47 surveyed employment and training programs they managed, we reviewed each study cited to determine whether criteria for each evaluation type, as specified in the questionnaire, were met. Our questionnaire asked respondents whether their program had been evaluated by OMB’s PART since fiscal year 2004. For respondents who indicated that their programs had undergone a PART review, we searched OMB’s PART Web site (www.expectmore.gov) in order to verify that a review had been completed. Of the 47 surveyed programs, 23 respondents answered that they had undergone a PART review since 2004. The process of verifying these answers on OMB’s PART Web site clarified that 17 of the 23 programs’ responses were correct. The other 6 programs’ responses were inaccurate by 2 years or less: all 23 of the programs answering positively to this question have undergone a PART review since 2002, but only 17 have taken place during or since 2004. In the course of our work, we found that one additional program was assessed using OMB’s PART in 2004, but this review was not identified by the program official who completed our survey. The questionnaire asked respondents whether an impact study had been completed since 2004 to evaluate program performance with regard to employment and training activities and, if so, to provide a citation for at least one of these studies. An impact study assesses the net effect of a program by comparing program outcomes with an estimate of what would have happened in the absence of the program. This type of study is conducted when external factors are known to influence the program outcomes, in order to isolate the program’s contribution to the achievement of its objectives. Of the survey’s 47 respondents, 8 provided at least one citation of what they believed to be an impact study. Of the 8 cited studies, we determined that 5 can accurately be described as completed impact studies. To make this assessment, we reviewed the methodology section of each study, to the extent it had one. Two of the studies cited were deemed to be too methodologically limited to be classified as an impact study based on the description contained in the studies, and one of the studies was not yet completed at the time of our review. Our questionnaire also asked respondents whether any studies other than impact studies had been completed since 2004 to evaluate the program’s performance with regard to employment and training activities and, if so, to provide a citation for at least one of them. Of the survey’s 47 respondents, 13 provided at least one citation of a study that has evaluated program performance with regard to employment and training activities. In addition, one study cited by a program official as an impact study that was determined not to be an impact study was considered in this step. We determined that 13 of these 14 studies cited were based on research designs that allowed for the measurement of program performance with regard to employment and training activities and had been completed since 2004. One study cited in the questionnaire by a program official was not made available for review upon follow-up evaluations because it was said to not yet have been cleared for distribution. To make this assessment, we focused on the methodology section of the reports to the extent they had one. We conducted this performance audit from November 2009 through January 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Also known as the Native Employment Works program. Agency officials were unable to estimate the amount spent on employment and training activities. Also known as the Native Employment Works program. Officials were unable to estimate the amount that will be used on employment and training activities. Indian Vocational Training—United Tribes Technical College Brownfield Job Training Cooperative Agreements Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program Career and Technical Education—Basic Grants to States Career and Technical Education—Indian Set-aside Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Targeted Assistance Discretionary Program Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Targeted Assistance Grants Second Chance Act Prisoner Reentry Initiative Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions program grantees. Officials were unable to provide an estimate of the number of individuals who received employment and training services. Also known as the Native Employment Works program. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (HHS) National Guard Youth Challenge Program (DOD) Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program (DOL) Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project (DOL) Local Veterans’ Employment Representative Program (DOL) Registered Apprenticeship and Other Training (DOL) American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services (ED) Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program (ED) State Supported Employment Services Program (ED) Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Voluntary Agency Matching Grant Program (HHS) Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities (DOL) Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans (VA) Community-Based Job Training Grants (DOL) programs provided citations. We evaluated the methodology of each study and determined that 5 of them met the definition of an impact study provided in our questionnaire—a study that assessed the net effect of a program by comparing program outcomes with an estimate of what would have happened in the absence of the program—and had been completed since 2004. The other studies either did not meet our definition or were not completed. programs reported that their programs have been reviewed by OMB’s PART since 2004. We verified this against OMB’s PART Web site (www.expectmore.gov) and determined that 17 of the 2 programs have been reviewed by PART since 2004; the other 6 were reviewed by PART in 2002 or 200. programs provided citations for at least one other study that evaluated program performance with respect to employment and training activities since 2004. We reviewed these 1 studies, as well as another study that was identified as an impact study but did not meet our definition. We determined that 12 of the 14 studies evaluated program performance with respect to employment and training activities and had been completed since 2004. One study was cited but not made available for our review because it had not been cleared by the agency for distribution at the time of our survey. Creer nd Technicl Edtion – Basic Grnt to Ste (ED) Employment Service/Wgner-Peyer Fnded Activitie (DOL) H-1B Jo Trining Grnt (DOL) Regitered Apprenticehip nd Other Trining (DOL) Americn Indin Voctionl Rehabilittion Service (ED) Creer nd Technicl Edtion – IndiSet-aside (ED) Indin Voctionl Trining – United Tri Technicl College (DOI) Ntive Hiin Creer nd Technicl Edtion (ED) Tribal Work Grnt (HHS) Rehabilittion Service – Voctionl Rehabilittion Grnt to Ste (ED) Ste-Supported Employment Service Progrm (ED) Grnt to Ste for Workplce nd Commnity Trition Trining for Incrcerted Individua (ED) Refgee nd Entrnt Assnce – SociService Progrm (HHS) Refgee nd Entrnt Assnce – Trgeted Assnce Dicretionry Progrm (HHS) Refgee nd Entrnt Assnce – Trgeted Assnce Grnt (HHS) Refgee nd Entrnt Assnce – Volntry Agency Mtching Grnt Progrm (HHS) Locl Veters’ Employment Repreenttive Progrm (DOL) Conervtion Activitie y Yoth Service Orgniztion (DOI) Other Brownfield Jo Trining Coopertive Agreement (EPA)nity Service Employment Progrm (DOL)WANTO (DOL) The populations served are solely people with disabilities, and in most cases, those with significant disabilities. The primary population group served by the program is residents of Brownfield-impacted communities. Nearly all of the 47 programs offered participants a wide range of employment and training services in fiscal year 2009. For example, 43 programs offered participants at least 6 services, and 28 programs offered participants 10 or more services. Across all programs, the most commonly provided services were employment counseling and assessment, job readiness skills training, occupational or vocational training, and job search or job placement activities (see fig. 8). Agency officials also indicated whether each service provided by their programs was a primary or secondary service. The two most commonly provided primary services were occupational or vocational training and job search or job placement activities. Program provides career guidance and academic counseling that includes information regarding career awareness and planning, career options, financial aid, and postsecondary options, including baccalaureate degree programs. To provide adjustment assistance to qualified workers adversely affected by foreign trade which will assist them to obtain suitable employment. Under the Recovery Act, group eligibility was significantly expanded, and benefits were enhanced to focus more on retraining opportunities. A TAA beneficiary must: (1) be found by the Labor Department to have been adversely affected by increased imports or a shift in production to all countries, (2) be certified by the Secretary of Labor as eligible to apply for adjustment assistance, and (3) meet the following individual requirements: (a) his or her unemployment or underemployment must have begun on or after the impact date specified in the Secretary’s certification as the beginning of the import-impacted unemployment or underemployment; (b) his or her unemployment must begin before the expiration of the 2- year period beginning on the date on which the Secretary issued the certification for his or her group or before the termination date, if any, specified in the certification. In addition, to be eligible for weekly trade readjustment allowance (TRA) payments he or she must: (1) have been employed with wages at a minimum of $30 per week by the import-affected firm for at least 26 of the previous 52 weeks including the week of total layoff (up to 7 weeks of employer-authorized leave may be counted as qualifying weeks of employment or up to 26 weeks of disability compensation); and (2) be enrolled in or have completed a TAA- approved job training program, unless the determination is made that training is either not feasible or not appropriate, in which case a waiver of the training requirement may be issued. To receive TRA, the claimant must be enrolled in an approved training program within 26 weeks of the Secretary’s issuance of the certification or within 26 weeks of the worker’s most recent qualifying separation, whichever is later. Under the Recovery Act, group eligibility requirements now allow for certification of service workers as well as those who produce an article. In addition, government employees can now be certified when tasks are shifted abroad. Finally, workers who produce component parts of a product are also eligible. The purpose of the WIA Dislocated Workers program is to reemploy dislocated workers, improve the quality of the workforce, and enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the nation’s economy by providing workforce investment activities that increase the employment, retention, and earnings of participants, and increase occupational skill attainment by the participants. This program is designed to increase employment, as measured by entry into unsubsidized employment, retention in unsubsidized employment after entry into employment, and extent of recovery of prior earnings. Individuals eligible for assistance through the applicants receiving the funds include workers who have lost their jobs, including those dislocated as a result of plant closings or mass layoffs, and are unlikely to return to their previous industry or occupation; formerly self-employed individuals; and displaced homemakers who have been dependent on income of another family member, but are no longer supported by that income. Priority of Service is given to veterans and other covered persons. The NEGs have identical eligibility to the above and also includes certain military personnel and defense employees. Services through NEGs are targeted on individuals affected by mass layoffs, natural disasters, federal government actions, and other circumstances specified by the Secretary. WIA National Emergency Grants (Labor) The purpose of the National Emergency Grants program is to temporarily expand service capacity at the state and local levels by providing time-limited funding assistance in response to significant dislocation events. Significant events are those that create a sudden need for assistance that cannot reasonably be expected to be accommodated within the ongoing operations of the formula-funded Dislocated Worker program, including the discretionary resources reserved at the state level. Individuals who are eligible for assistance vary by type of National Emergency Grant project, however they must meet the criteria provided in the Workforce Investment Act: National Emergency Grants - Application Procedures, 69 Federal Register 23052 at 23057 (Apr. 27, 2004). To provide discretionary grant funds to state vocational rehabilitation agencies and public nonprofit organizations for special projects and demonstrations which hold promise of expanding and otherwise improving services to individuals with disabilities over and above those provided by the Basic Support Program administered by states. Individuals with disabilities and individuals with significant disabilities as defined in Sections 7(9)(A)(B) and 7(20)(A), respectively, of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. National Farmworker Jobs Program (Labor) To provide job training and other employability development services and related assistance for those individuals, including their dependents, who are primarily employed in agricultural labor that is characterized by chronic unemployment and underemployment. The ultimate beneficiaries are low income individuals and their dependents who have, during any consecutive 12-month period in the 24 months preceding their application for enrollment, been primarily employed in agricultural labor that is characterized by chronic unemployment or underemployment due to the seasonal or migratory nature of the work. Individuals must also be legally available for work and males must not have violated the Selective Service Act registration requirement. Multiple groups (no specific target group) Career and Technical Education—Basic Grants to States (Education) To develop more fully the academic, career, and technical skills of secondary and postsecondary students who elect to enroll in career and technical education programs. A wide range of students pursuing academic and career and technical education will benefit. Community-Based Job Training Grants (Labor) Workers must have the skills needed to secure good jobs and pursue careers in high-growth, high-demand industries. Community colleges are important training providers for workers needing to develop, retool, refine, and broaden their skills in high- growth, high-demand occupations because of their close connection to local labor markets. Community- Based Job Training Grants strengthen the role of community colleges in promoting the U.S. workforce’s full potential. Community-Based Job Training Grants are awarded through a competitive process to support workforce training for workers to prepare them for careers in high- growth industries through the national system of community and technical colleges. current job have changed; untapped labor pools such as immigrant workers, individuals with disabilities, veterans, older workers, youth, etc; or entry-level workers who need basic skills and/or specific occupational skill training. Community Services Block Grant (Health and Human Services ) States make grants to qualified locally based nonprofit community antipoverty agencies and other eligible entities which provide services to low-income individuals and families. The official poverty line, as established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, is used as a criterion of eligibility in the Community Services Block Grant program. When a state determines that it serves the objectives of the block grant, it may revise the income limit, not to exceed 125 percent of the official poverty line. Under the Recovery Act, states were able to revise the income limit to not exceed 200 % of the official poverty line for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Appendix XI: Reported Objectives and Eligibility for Employment and Training Programs, by Target Group (h) make more effective use of other related programs; (3) to provide on an emergency basis for the services to low-income individuals. Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities (Labor) To assist persons to secure employment and workforce information by providing a variety of job search assistance and information services without charge to job seekers and to employers seeking qualified individuals to fill job openings. All employers seeking workers, persons seeking employment, and associated groups. Priority of service is given to veterans and other covered persons. Veterans receive priority referral to jobs, as well as specialized employment services and assistance. The Wagner-Peyser program also administers the work test for state unemployment compensation systems and provides job search and placement services for unemployment insurance claimants. The H-1B Job Training Grants Program funds projects that provide training and related activities to workers to assist them in gaining the skills and competencies needed to obtain or upgrade employment in high- growth industries or economic sectors. Generally, the scope of potential trainees under these programs can be very broad. Please review the Solicitation for Grant Application for specific requirements. Training may be targeted to a wide variety of populations, including unemployed individuals and incumbent workers. Registered Apprenticeship and Other Training (Labor) To stimulate and assist industry in the development, expansion, and improvement of registered apprenticeship and other training programs designed to provide the skilled workers required by U.S. employers, ensure equal employment opportunities in registered apprenticeship, and ensure the quality of all new and existing registered apprenticeship programs. Individuals applying for acceptance into an apprenticeship training program must be at least 16 years old and must satisfy the apprenticeship program sponsor that they have sufficient ability, aptitude, and education to master the rudiments of the trade/occupation and to satisfactorily complete the related theoretical instruction required in the program. To assist members of households participating in SNAP in gaining skills, training, work, or experience that will increase their ability to obtain regular employment. Households may have no more than $2,000 in countable resources, such as a bank account ($3,000 if at least one person in the household is age 60 or older, or is disabled). Certain resources are not counted, such as a home and lot. Special rules are used to determine the resource value of vehicles owned by household members. The gross monthly income of most households must be 130 % or less of the federal poverty guidelines ($2,389 per month for a family of four in most places, effective Oct. 1, 2009 through Sept. 30, 2010). Gross income includes all cash payments to the household, with a few exceptions specified in the law or the program regulations. Net monthly income must be 100 % or less of federal poverty guidelines ($1,838 per month for a household of four in most places, effective Oct. 1, 2009 through Sept. 30, 2010). Net income is figured by adding all of a household’s gross income, and then taking a number of approved deductions for child care, some shelter costs, and other expenses. Households with an elderly or disabled member are subject only to the net income test. Most able- bodied adult applicants must meet certain work requirements. All household members must provide a Social Security number or apply for one. SNAP participants who are not exempt from work requirements must participate in an Employment and Training (E&T) Program if referred. SNAP participants may also volunteer for the E&T Program, but the state agency decides who it will serve. This program provides assistance to state eligible agencies to award grants to consortia of local agencies and postsecondary education institutions for the development and operation of programs consisting of at least 2 years of secondary education and at least 2 years of postsecondary education or an apprenticeship program that follows secondary education. These programs provide Tech-Prep education to students, leading to a technical skills proficiency, an industry- recognized credential, a certificate, or a degree in a specific career field. Students desiring to participate in a combined secondary/postsecondary program leading to a technical skill proficiency, postsecondary degree, or 2-year certificate with technical preparation in at least one field of engineering, applied science, mechanical, industrial, or practical art or trade, or agriculture, health, or business will benefit. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (HHS) To provide grants to states, territories, the District of Columbia, and federally recognized Indian Tribes operating their own Tribal TANF programs to assist needy families with children so that children can be cared for in their own homes; to reduce dependency by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; to reduce and prevent out-of- wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. Needy families with children, as determined eligible by the state, territory, or tribe in accordance with the state or tribal plan submitted to HHS. The purpose of this program is to improve the quality of the workforce, reduce welfare dependency, and enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the nation’s economy by providing workforce investment activities that increase the employment, retention, and earnings of participants, and increase occupational skill attainment by the participants. This program is designed to increase employment, as measured by entry into unsubsidized employment, retention in unsubsidized employment after entry into employment, and earnings. All adults 18 years and older are eligible for core services. Priority for intensive and training services must be given to recipients of public assistance and other low-income individuals where funds are limited. States and local areas are responsible for establishing procedures for applying the priority requirements. Priority of service is given to veterans and other covered persons. American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services (Education) To provide vocational rehabilitation services to American Indians with disabilities who reside on federal or state reservations in order to prepare them for suitable employment. American Indians with disabilities residing on or near a federal or state reservation (including Native Alaskans) who meet the definition of an individual with a disability in Section 7 (8)(A) of the Rehabilitation Act. Career and Technical Education—Indian Set-aside (Education) To make grants to or enter into contracts with Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and Alaska Native entities to plan, conduct, and administer programs or portions of programs authorized by and consistent with the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006. Members of federally-recognized Indian tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska Native entities, and certain schools funded by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education. To provide vocational training and employment opportunities to eligible American Indians and reduce federal dependence. Members of federally recognized Indian Tribes who are unemployed, underemployed, or in need of training to obtain reasonable and satisfactory employment. Complete information on beneficiary eligibility is found in 25 CFR, Parts 26 and 27. Indian Vocational Training—United Tribes Technical College (Interior) To provide vocational training to individual American Indians through the United Tribes Technical College, located in Bismarck, North Dakota. Individual American Indians who are members of a federally recognized Indian Tribe and reside on or near an Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Complete information on beneficiary eligibility is found in 25 CFR, Parts 26 and 27. To support employment and training activities for Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian individuals in order: to develop more fully the academic, occupational, and literacy skills of such individuals; to make such individuals more competitive in the workforce; and to promote the economic and social development of Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities in accordance with the goals and values of such communities. All programs assisted under this section shall be administered in a manner consistent with the principles of the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) and the government-to- government relationship between the federal government and Indian tribal governments. Supplemental youth funding is also awarded to help low-income Native American youth and Native Hawaiian youth, between the ages of 14 and 21, acquire the educational skills, training, and the support needed to achieve academic and employment success and successfully transition to careers and productive adulthood. American Indians (members of federally recognized and state Indian tribes, bands, and groups); other individuals of Native American descent, such as, but not limited to, the Klamaths in Oregon, Micmac and Maliseet in Maine, the Lumbees in North Carolina and South Carolina; Indians variously described as terminated or landless, Eskimos and Aleuts in Alaska, and Hawaiian Natives. (“Hawaiian Native” means an individual any of whose ancestors were natives prior to 1778 of the area which now comprises the State of Hawaii.) Applicants must also be economically disadvantaged, unemployed, or underemployed. A Native American grantee may in some cases enroll participants who are not economically disadvantaged, unemployed, or underemployed in upgrading and retraining programs. See 20 CFR 668.300(b)(4) and (5). Native American youth between the ages of 14 and 21 who live on or near a reservation or in the States of Oklahoma, Alaska, and Hawaii and are low-income, are eligible to receive supplemental youth services. Under the Recovery Act, the program’s supplemental youth eligibility age requirements were extended to 24. Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education (Education) To make grants to organizations primarily serving and representing Native Hawaiians for programs or portions of programs authorized by, and consistent with, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. Native Hawaiians served by eligible entities will benefit. Eligible entities are community-based organizations primarily serving and representing Native Hawaiians. For purposes of this program, a community-based organization means a public or private nonprofit organization that provides career and technical education, or related services to individuals in the Native Hawaiian community. Any eligible community-based organization may apply individually or with one or more eligible community-based organizations or as a member of a consortium. To allow eligible Indian Tribes and Alaska Native organizations to operate a program to make work activities available. Service areas and populations as designated by the eligible Indian Tribe or Alaska Native organization. Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions (Education) To make grants to tribally controlled postsecondary vocational and technical institutions to provide career and technical education services and basic support for the education and training of Indian students. American Indians served by eligible entities will benefit. Eligible entities are Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions that receive no funds from either the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) or the Navajo Community College Act (25 U.S.C. 640a et seq.). To create and expand job and career opportunities for individuals with disabilities in the competitive labor market by partnering with private industry to provide job training and placement and career advancement services. An individual is eligible for services under this program if the individual to be served is an individual with a disability or an individual with a significant disability, as defined in Sections 7 (20)(A) and 7 (21)(A), respectively, of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. In making this determination, the state vocational rehabilitation unit shall rely on the determination made by the recipient of the grant under which the services are provided, to the extent that the determination is appropriate, available, and consistent with the requirements of the Act. Rehabilitation Services—Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States (Education) To assist states in operating comprehensive, coordinated, effective, efficient, and accountable programs of vocational rehabilitation; to assess, plan, develop, and provide vocational rehabilitation services for individuals with disabilities, consistent with their strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, and capabilities so they may prepare for and engage in competitive employment. Eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services is based on the presence of a physical and/or mental impairment, which for such an individual constitutes or results in a substantial impediment to employment, and the need for vocational rehabilitation services that may be expected to benefit the individual in terms of an employment outcome. To provide grants for time-limited services leading to supported employment for individuals with the most severe disabilities to enable such individuals to achieve the employment outcome of supported employment. Individuals with the most severe disabilities whose ability or potential to engage in a training program leading to supported employment has been determined by evaluating rehabilitation potential. In addition, individuals must need extended services in order to perform competitive work and have the ability to work in a supported employment setting. Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Individuals (Education) To assist and encourage incarcerated individuals who have obtained a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent to acquire educational and job skills through: coursework to prepare such individuals to pursue a postsecondary education certificate, an associate’s degree, or bachelor’s degree while in prison or employment counseling and other related services which start during incarceration and end not later than 2 years after release from incarceration. An incarcerated individual who has obtained a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent shall be eligible for participation if such individual (1) is eligible to be released within 7 years (including an incarcerated individual who is eligible for parole within such time); (2) is 35 years of age or younger; and (3) has not been convicted of—(A) a ‘criminal offense’, or sexually violent offense’, as such terms are defined in the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14071 et seq.); or (B) murder, as described in section 1111 of title 18, United States Code. This program includes both Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) grants to serve adult returning offenders and Youthful Offender grants aimed at youth involved or at risk of involvement in crime and violence. The objectives of the PRI grants include increasing the employment rate, employment retention rate, and earnings of released prisoners, and decreasing their recidivism. The objectives of the Youthful Offender grants include preventing in-school youth from dropping out of school, increasing the employment rate of out-of-school youth, increasing the reading and math skills of youth, reducing the involvement of youth in crime and violence, and reducing the recidivism rate of youth. PRI grants serve individuals, 18 years old and older, who have been convicted as an adult and have been imprisoned for violating a state or federal law, and who have never been committed a sex-related offense. Depending on the solicitation, enrollment may be limited based on whether the presenting offense was violent or whether the individual has previously committed a violent crime. Individuals eligible for Youthful Offender grants vary depending on the solicitation. To facilitate inmates’ successful reintegration into society. This initiative is a comprehensive effort that addresses both juvenile and adult populations of serious, high- risk offenders. Phase 1 programs are designed to prepare offenders to reenter society and the services provided include job training. Phase 2 programs work with offenders prior to and immediately following their release from correctional institutions and the services provided include job-skills development. Phase 3 programs connect individuals who have left the supervision of the justice system with a network of social service agencies and community- based organizations to provide ongoing services and mentoring relationships. The target population for the initiative must be a specific subset of the population of individuals aged 18 and older convicted as an adult and imprisoned in a state, local, or tribal prison or jail. Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Social Services Program (HHS) The Refugee Social Services Program is part of the Division of Refugee Assistance and allocates formula funds to states to serve refugees who have been in the U.S. less than 60 months (5 years). This program supports employability services and other services that address participants’ barriers to employment such as social adjustment services, interpretation and translation services, day care for children, citizenship and naturalization services, etc. Employability services are designed to enable refugees to obtain jobs within 1 year of becoming enrolled in services. Refugees who have been in the U.S. less than 60 months (5 years). Service priorities are (a) all newly arriving refugees during their first year in the U.S. who apply for services; (b) refugees who are receiving cash assistance; (c) unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash assistance; and (d) employed refugees in need of services to retain employment or to attain economic independence. The Targeted Assistance Discretionary Program is part of the Division of Refugee Assistance and provides grants to states and state-alternative programs to address the employment needs of refugees that cannot be met with the Formula Social Services or Formula Targeted Assistance Grant programs. Activities under this program are for the purpose of supplementing and/or complementing existing employment services to help refugees achieve economic self- sufficiency. Services funded through the targeted assistance program are required to focus primarily on those refugees who, either because of their protracted use of public assistance or difficulty in securing employment, continue to need services beyond the initial years of resettlement. This funding requirement also promotes the provision of services to refugees who are “hard to reach” and, thus, finding greater difficulty integrating. Refugees residing in the U.S. longer than 5 years, refugee women who are not literate in their native language, as well as the elderly are some of the special populations served by this discretionary grant program. Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Targeted Assistance Grants (HHS) To provide funding for employment-related and other social services for refugees, asylees, certain Amerasians, victims of a severe form of trafficking, entrants, and Iraqi and Afghan special immigrants in areas of high refugee concentration and high welfare utilization. Persons admitted to the U.S. within the last 5 years as refugees under Section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act; granted asylum under Section 208 of the Act; Cuban and Haitian entrants, as defined in Section 501 of the Refugee Education Assistance Act; and certain Amerasians from Vietnam and their accompanying family members, as defined by Section 584(c) of the Foreign Relations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriation Act of 1988. Victims of a severe form of trafficking who have received a certified or letter of eligibility from ORR. Refugee and Entrant Assistance—Voluntary Agency Matching Grant Program (HHS) To assist refugees in becoming self-supporting and independent members of American society, by providing grant funds to private nonprofit organizations to support case management, transitional assistance, and social services for new arrivals. Refugees must be enrolled within 31 days of arrival. Entrants/asylees must be enrolled within 31 days of granting of parole or asylum. To provide intensive services to meet the employment needs of disabled and other eligible veterans with maximum emphasis in meeting the employment needs of those who are economically or educationally disadvantaged, including homeless veterans and veterans with barriers to employment. Eligible veterans and eligible persons with emphasis on Special Disabled veterans, disabled veterans, economically or educationally disadvantaged veterans, and veterans with other barriers to employment. Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project (Labor) To provide services to assist in reintegrating homeless veterans into meaningful employment within the labor force and to stimulate the development of effective service delivery systems that will address the complex problems facing homeless veterans. Individuals who are homeless veterans. The term “homeless” or “homeless individual” includes: (1) An individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and (2) an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is: (a) a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill; (b) an institution that provides a temporary institutionalized; or (c) a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodations for human beings (Reference: 42 U.S.C. 1302). A “veteran” is an individual who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released there from under conditions other than dishonorable. (Reference: 33 U.S.C. 101 (2)). Local Veterans’ Employment Representative Program (Labor) Conduct outreach and provide seminars to employers which advocates hiring of veterans; facilitate Transition Assistance Program (TAP) employment workshops to transitioning service members; establish and conduct job search workshops; facilitate employment, training, and placement services furnished to veterans in a state under the applicable state employment service or one-stop career center delivery systems whose sole purpose is to assist veterans in gaining and retaining employment. Eligible veterans and eligible persons. To provide employment instruction, information, and assistance to separating and retiring military personnel and their spouses through domestic and overseas installations and/or facilities by offering job search and other related services. Service members within 2 years of retirement or 1 year of separation and their spouses. Veterans’ Workforce Investment Program (Labor) To provide services to assist in reintegrating eligible veterans into meaningful employment within the labor force and to stimulate the development of effective service delivery systems that will address the complex problems facing eligible veterans. Service-connected disabled veterans, veterans who have significant barriers to employment, veterans who served on active duty in the armed forces during a war or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized, and veterans who are recently separated from military service (48 months). Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans (VA) To provide all services and assistance necessary to enable service-disabled veterans and service persons hospitalized or receiving outpatient medical care services or treatment for a service- connected disability pending discharge to gain and maintain suitable employment. When employment is not reasonably feasible, the program can provide the needed services and assistance to help the individual achieve maximum independence in daily living. Veterans of World War II and later service with a service-connected disability or disabilities rated at least 20 % compensable and certain service-disabled servicepersons pending discharge or release from service if VA determines the servicepersons will likely receive at least a 20 % rating and they need vocational rehabilitation because of an employment handicap. Veterans with compensable ratings of 10 % may also be eligible if they are found to have a serious employment handicap. To receive an evaluation for vocational rehabilitation services, a veteran must have received, or eventually receive, an honorable or other than dishonorable discharge, have a VA service-connected disability rating of 10 % or more, and apply for vocational rehabilitation services. To utilize qualified youth or conservation corps to carry out appropriate conservation projects which the Secretary is authorized to carry out under other authority of law on public lands. Work cooperatively with the National Park Service (NPS) on cultural- and natural resource-related conservation projects such as trail development and maintenance; historic, cultural, forest and timber management; minor construction work; archaeological conservation; and native plant habitat restoration and rehabilitation. Promote and stimulate public purposes such as education, job training, development of responsible citizenship, productive community involvement, and further the understanding and appreciation of natural and cultural resources through the involvement of youth and young adults in care and enhancement of public resources. Continue the longstanding efforts of the NPS to provide opportunities for public service, youth employment, minority youth development and training, and participation of young adults in accomplishing conservation- related work. Private nonprofit institutions and organizations, state and local government agencies, and quasi- public nonprofit institutions and organizations that support youth career training and development in the areas of resource management, conservation, and cultural resources; individuals/families; graduate students; youth or corps located in a specific area that have a substantial portion of members who are economically physically, or educationally disadvantaged (Public Land Corps Act of 1993); general public, specifically, young people, minority groups, social and economically disadvantaged individuals will benefit from the education and skill development in the area of conservation as well as instilling conservation ethics. Job Corps is the nation’s largest federally funded training program that provides at-risk youth, ages 16-24, with academic instruction, toward the achievement of a High School Diploma or GED, and career training in high-growth, high-demand industries. Upon exit from the program, participants receive transition assistance to employment, higher education, or the military. The program is primarily residential, serving more than 60,000 students at 123 centers nationwide. To be eligible to become an enrollee, an individual shall be: (1) not less than age 16 and not more than age 21 on the date of enrollment, except that (A) not more than 20 % of the individuals enrolled in the Job Corps may be not less than age 22 and not more than age 24 on the date of enrollment; and (B) either such maximum age limitation may be waived by the Secretary, in accordance with regulations of the Secretary, in the case of an individual with a disability; (2) a low-income individual; and (3) an individual who is one or more of the following: (A) basic skills deficient; (B) a school dropout; (C) homeless, a runaway, or a foster child; (D) a parent; (E) an individual who requires additional education, vocational training, or intensive counseling and related assistance, in order to participate successfully in regular schoolwork or to secure and hold employment. The Secretary of Defense may use the National Guard to conduct a civilian youth opportunities program, to be known as the “National Guard Youth Challenge Program, which shall consist of at least a 22-week residential program and a 12-month postresidential mentoring period. The program shall seek to improve life skills and employment potential of participants by providing military-based training and supervised work experience, together with the core components of assisting participants to receive a high school diploma or its equivalent, leadership development, promoting fellowship and community service, developing life coping skills and job skills, and improving physical fitness and health and hygiene. A school dropout from secondary school shall be eligible to participate in the program. The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe the standards and procedures for selecting participants from among school dropouts. Selection of participants for the program established by the Secretary of Defense shall be from applicants who meet the following eligibility standards: (a) 16-18 years of age at time of entry into the program; (b) a school dropout from secondary school; (c) a citizen or legal resident of the United States; (d) unemployed or underemployed; (e) not currently on parole or probation for other than juvenile status offenses, not awaiting sentencing, and not under indictment, accused, or convicted of a felony; (f) free from use of illegal drugs or substances; (g) physically and mentally capable to participate in the program in which enrolled with reasonable accommodation for physical and other disabilities; and (h) application procedures shall, to the fullest extent possible, attempt to reach and include economically and educationally disadvantaged groups. To help low-income youth, between the ages of 14 and 21, acquire the educational and occupational skills, training, and support needed to achieve academic and employment success and successfully transition to careers and productive adulthood. Under the Recovery Act, any youth activities under WIA were allowable activities. While the Act did not limit the use of Recovery Act funds to summer employment, the congressional intent was to offer expanded summer employment opportunities for youth. ETA strongly encouraged states and local areas to use as much of the Recovery Act funds as possible to operate expanded summer youth employment opportunities during the summer of 2009, and to provide as many youth as possible with summer employment opportunities and work experiences throughout the year, ensuring that these summer employment opportunities and work experiences were high quality. ETA also expressed an interest in and encouraged states and local areas to develop work experiences and other activities that exposed youth to opportunities in “green” educational and career pathways. An eligible youth is an individual who: (1) is 14 to 21 years of age; and (2) is an individual who received an income or is a member of a family that received a total family income that, in relation to family size, does not exceed the higher of (a) the poverty line; or (b) 70 % of the lower living standard income; and (3) meets one or more of the following criteria: is an individual who is deficient in basic literacy skills; a school dropout; homeless; a runaway; a foster child; pregnant or a parent; an offender; or requires additional assistance to complete their education or secure and hold employment. There is an exception to permit youth who are not low-income individuals to receive youth services. Up to 5 % of youth participants served by youth programs in a local area may be individuals who do not meet the income criterion for eligible youth, provided that they are within one or more of the following categories: school dropout; basic skills deficient; are one or more grade levels below the grade level appropriate to the individual’s age; pregnant or parenting; possess one or more disabilities, including learning disabilities; homeless or runaway; offender; or face serious barriers to employment as identified by the local board. Under the Recovery Act, age eligibility for youth services funded by the Recovery Act increased from 21 to 24. Grant funds will be used to provide disadvantaged youth with: the education and employment skills necessary to achieve economic self sufficiency in occupations in high demand and postsecondary education and training opportunities; opportunities for meaningful work and service to their communities; and opportunities to develop employment and leadership skills and a commitment to community development among youth in low- income communities. As part of their programming, YouthBuild grantees will tap the energies and talents of disadvantaged youth to increase the supply of permanent affordable housing for homeless individuals and low-income families and to assist youth develop the leadership, learning, and high-demand occupational skills needed to succeed in today’s global economy. An eligible youth is an individual who is: (1) between the ages of 16 and 24 on the date of enrollment; and (2) a member of a disadvantaged youth population such as a member of a low- income family, a youth in foster care (including youth aging out of foster care), a youth offender, a youth who is an individual with a disability, a child of an incarcerated parent, or a migrant youth; and (3) an individual who has dropped out of high school and re- enrolled in an alternative school, if that re-enrollment is part of a sequential service strategy. Up to (but not more than) 25 % of the participants in the program may be youth who do not meet the education and disadvantaged criteria above but who are: (1) basic skills deficient, despite attainment of a secondary school diploma, General Education Development (GED) credential, or other state-recognized equivalent (including recognized alternative standards for individuals with disabilities); or (2) have been referred by a local secondary school for participation in a YouthBuild program leading to the attainment of a secondary school diploma. Appendix XI: Reported Objectives and Eligibility for Employment and Training Programs, by Target Group provides a year or more of educational services prior to entry into the formal YouthBuild program supported by Labor’s Employment and Training Administration. This definition is intended to encompass a charter school that is connected to a YouthBuild program. Brownfield Job Training Cooperative Agreements (Environmental Protection) The objective of the Brownfield Job Training Program is to recruit, train, and place unemployed and underemployed, predominantly low-income and minority, residents of Brownfield-impacted communities with the skills needed to obtain full-time, sustainable employment in Brownfield assessment and cleanup activities and the environmental field. The Brownfield Job Training Program promotes the facilitation of assessment, remediation, or preparation of Brownfield sites. Job training grants will provide environmental job training and help individuals of Brownfield neighborhoods take advantage of job opportunities created as a result of the assessment and clean up of Brownfield properties. In addition, this program benefits industry by increasing the supply of skilled labor for firms that engage in environmental assessment and clean up. Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) (Labor) To foster individual economic self- sufficiency; provide training in meaningful part-time opportunities in community service activities for unemployed low-income persons who are 55 years of age or older, particularly persons who have poor employment prospects; and to increase the number of older persons who may enjoy the benefits of unsubsidized employment in both the public and private sectors. Adults 55 years or older with a family income at or below 125 % of the HHS poverty level. Prospective participants must provide documentation relative to age and personal financial status, which is required to determine whether the individual is program eligible. With certain exceptions, the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey definition of income governs the determination of SCSEP applicant income eligibility. Section 518 (a)(3)(A)OAA-2006 specifies that any income that is unemployment compensation, a benefit received under title XVI of the Social Security Act; a payment made to or on behalf of veterans or former members of the armed forces under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 25 % of a benefit received under title II of the Social Security Act is excluded from SCSEP income eligibility determinations. To promote the recruitment, training, employment, and retention of women in apprenticeship and nontraditional occupations; help women obtain soft skills and industry-specific training; and help employers and labor unions recruit, place, and retain women in registered apprenticeship programs that lead to nontraditional occupations. Women who are seeking to enroll in a preapprenticeship program, an apprenticeship training program, or a nontraditional occupation must be at least 16 years old and must satisfy the apprenticeship program sponsor that they have sufficient ability, aptitude, and education to master the rudiments of the trade/occupation and to satisfactorily complete the related theoretical instruction required in the program. This program’s eligibility criteria were modified by the Recovery Act. Also known as the Native Employment Works program. Patrick Dibattista (Assistant Director) and Paul Schearf (Analyst-in- Charge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Sherwin Chapman, Caitlin Croake, and Chad Williams made significant contributions to this report, in all aspects. In addition, Pamela Davidson provided technical support in design and methodology; Jill Lacey provided technical support in survey design and survey research; Joanna Chan and Julia Kennon provided data analysis; Alex Galuten provided legal support; Mimi Nguyen provided graphic design assistance; and Kathleen van Gelder assisted in the message and report development. Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and Performance Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington, D.C.: April 18, 2003. Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Indicate Need for Closer Examination of Structure. GAO-01-71. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 2000. Multiple Employment Training Programs: Information Crosswalk on 163 Employment Training Programs. GAO/HEHS-95-85FS. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 1995. Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to Reduce Costs, Streamline the Bureaucracy, and Improve Results. GAO/T-HEHS-95-53. Washington, D.C.: January 10, 1995. Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlap Among Programs Raises Questions About Efficiency. GAO/HEHS-94-193. Washington, D.C.: July 11, 1994. Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements Underscore Need for Change. GAO/T-HEHS-94-120. Washington, D.C.: March 10, 1994. Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Major Overhaul is Needed. GAO/T-HEHS-94-109. Washington, D.C.: March 3, 1994. Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Can Add Unnecessary Administrative Costs. GAO/HEHS-94-80. Washington, D.C.: January 28, 1994. Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements Hamper Delivery of Services. GAO/HEHS-94-78. Washington, D.C.: January 28, 1994.

Summary: Federally funded employment and training programs play an important role in helping job seekers obtain employment. The Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services (HHS) largely administer these programs. GAO's objectives were to determine: (1) whether the number of federal employment and training programs and funding for them have changed since our 2003 report, (2) what kinds of outcome measures the programs use and what is known about program effectiveness, (3) the extent to which the programs provide similar services to similar populations, (4) the extent to which duplication may exist among selected large programs, and (5) what options exist for increasing efficiencies among these programs. To address these objectives, GAO searched federal program lists, surveyed federal agency officials, reviewed relevant reports and studies, and interviewed officials in selected states. Due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), both the number of--and funding for--federal employment and training programs have increased since our 2003 report, but little is known about the effectiveness of most programs. In fiscal year 2009, 9 federal agencies spent approximately $18 billion to administer 47 programs--an increase of 3 programs and roughly $5 billion since our 2003 report. This increase is due to temporary Recovery Act funding. Nearly all programs track multiple outcome measures, but only five programs have had an impact study completed since 2004 to assess whether outcomes resulted from the program and not some other cause. Almost all federal employment and training programs, including those with broader missions such as multipurpose block grants, overlap with at least one other program in that they provide similar services to similar populations. These programs most commonly target Native Americans, veterans, and youth, and some require participants to be economically disadvantaged. Although the extent to which individuals receive the same employment and training services from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Employment Service (ES), and Workforce Investment Act Adult (WIA Adult) programs is unknown, the programs maintain separate administrative structures to provide some of the same services, such as job search assistance, to low-income individuals. Agency officials acknowledged that greater administrative efficiencies could be achieved in delivering these services, but said factors, such as the number of clients that any one-stop center can serve and one-stops' proximity to clients, particularly in rural areas, could warrant having multiple entities provide the same services. Options that may increase efficiencies include colocating services and consolidating administrative structures, but implementation may pose challenges. While WIA Adult and ES services are generally colocated in one-stop centers, TANF employment services are colocated in one-stops to a lesser extent. Florida, Texas, and Utah have consolidated their welfare and workforce agencies, and state officials said this reduced costs and improved services, but they could not provide a dollar figure for cost savings. An obstacle to further progress in achieving greater administrative efficiencies is that little information is available about the strategies and results of such initiatives. In addition, little is known about the incentives states and localities have to undertake such initiatives and whether additional incentives may be needed. Labor and HHS should disseminate information about state efforts to consolidate administrative structures and colocate services and, as warranted, identify options for increasing incentives to undertake these initiatives. In their comments, Labor and HHS agreed that they should disseminate this information.