The WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs provide employment services to a wide range of participants. The Adult Program serves all individuals age 18 and older, and the Dislocated Worker Program serves individuals who have been or will be terminated or laid off from employment, among others. The Adult Program prioritizes certain services for recipients of public assistance and other low-income individuals when program funds are limited. To allow individuals to participate, both programs offer supportive services such as transportation, childcare, housing, and needs-related payments under certain circumstances. WIA requires that the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and other federally funded employment and training programs provide services through one-stop centers—now called American Job Centers—so that jobseekers and employers can find assistance at a single location. DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) administers the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and oversees their implementation, which is carried out by states and localities. WIA requires that each state have one or more local workforce investment areas, each governed by a local workforce investment board (WIB). WIBs’ responsibilities include setting policy and overseeing service delivery for the local workforce area, coordinating workforce investment activities with economic development strategies, and developing relationships with employers. Our previous work has identified innovative collaborations used by some WIBs to help employers meet their needs for workers with certain skills, among other needs. WIBs also select the entities to operate American Job Centers and conduct oversight of the American Job Center network. The Adult and Dislocated Worker programs provide participants with a variety of employment services. The programs provide three levels of service: core, intensive, and training. Core services include basic services such as job searches and labor market information, and may be accessed with or without staff assistance. Intensive services include such activities as comprehensive assessment and case management, which require greater staff involvement. Intensive services are available to participants who are unable to obtain or retain employment after receiving at least one core service. Training services include such activities as occupational skills or on- the-job training. In order to be eligible for training services, participants must: 1) be unable to obtain or retain employment after receiving at least one intensive service; 2) be in need of training; and 3) have the skills and qualifications to successfully complete the training program, among other requirements. To determine whether participants need training and to assess their skills, WIBs may require them to complete certain activities. We previously found that most WIBs required participants to complete skills assessments or tests and gather information about the occupation for After which they wanted training before entering a training program. participants are determined to be eligible for training, DOL requires that they select approved training providers in consultation with case managers, but participants ultimately choose the training programs in which they participate.demand occupations, which DOL interprets to include both currently WIA requires that training be directly linked to available jobs as well as occupations that are projected to grow in the future. In fiscal year 2013, the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs received a total of about $1.9 billion in appropriations, down from about $2.5 billion in fiscal year 2000 (a 24 percent reduction). funding allocations, states must meet agreed upon levels of performance. WIA requires performance measures that gauge program results for jobseekers in the areas of entered employment, employment retention, earnings, and credential attainment. In addition, WIA requires measures of customer satisfaction for jobseekers and for employers. States may request waivers to report performance measures known as common measures, which do not include credential attainment. WIA requires states to negotiate performance levels with DOL and holds states accountable for achieving these levels by tying them to financial sanctions and incentive funding. Fiscal year 2000 appropriations are presented in nominal dollars and are not adjusted for inflation. addition, local areas may undertake other initiatives to identify demand occupations. We estimate that a majority of local areas used various sources of information to identify demand occupations (see fig. 1). All but one of these sources—online job postings, which are funded by private companies and organizations—are funded primarily by DOL and provided by state labor market information offices or state workforce agencies. The sources local areas used the most were state job banks and industry and occupational projections. Specifically, we estimate that nearly 90 percent of local areas used state job banks to identify available jobs, and nearly 90 percent of local areas used industry and occupational projections to identify occupations that are projected to grow. Local areas found all of the sources of information they used to identify demand occupations at least moderately useful. Local areas found regional labor market analysts or economists the most useful of the sources for identifying occupations that are projected to grow, although they used them slightly less than industry and occupational projections, as shown in figure 1 above. However, 28 percent of local areas did not have access to such analysts or economists because their states did not employ them or did not know whether their states employed them. In addition to using these sources of information, most of which are provided by state agencies, we estimate that 93 percent of all areas undertook at least one local initiative to identify demand occupations. DOL encourages areas to use local initiatives to identify such occupations. Specifically, DOL has issued guidance encouraging local areas to use information from employers and economic development partnerships, among other sources, to identify available jobs and occupations that are projected to grow. As compared to other sources of information, about 90 percent of areas used local initiatives for at least one of the following reasons: They more accurately reflected the current and expected needs of local employers. They provided more detailed information. They provided more useful information. The confidence interval for the estimate of 93 percent is 88 to 97 percent. the state labor market information office, state workforce agency, or state or local economic development agency, while about one-third purchased it from private companies. Of the local initiatives, areas found discussions or focus groups with employers about their hiring plans or skill needs most useful for identifying demand occupations. Most of the areas that undertook local initiatives used WIA funding to support them (see fig. 3). Some local areas also used other funding sources—such as the Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser) program, the state workforce agency, economic development agencies, and private funding—to support these initiatives. We estimate that, in 2012, a majority of local areas required participants to complete certain activities before entering a training program (see fig. 4).case managers to discuss labor market information and training options; 2) complete a skills or interest assessment; or 3) obtain information about the occupation for which they wanted training. When local areas did not require participants to complete these activities, they typically encouraged participants to complete them. For example, many local areas required participants to: 1) meet with In half of local areas, employment prospects were greater outside the local area than inside the area. When employment prospects were greater in neighboring areas, we estimate that 62 percent of local areas guided participants toward training for those jobs to a large or moderate extent. Most local areas faced challenges in guiding participants toward training, but were still able to guide them toward training. We estimate that two- thirds of local areas faced major or moderate challenges related to (1) participants’ lack of financial or work supports, such as child care or transportation, and (2) participants’ lack of basic skills necessary to participate in training, such as reading and math skills (see fig. 5). In 57 percent of local areas, however, the challenges they experienced did not negatively affect their ability to guide participants toward training. In the 38 percent of local areas where these challenges had a negative effect, more than half of areas guided fewer participants toward training, and one-third guided fewer participants toward their first choice of training. Local areas cited a variety of reasons why they had difficulty helping employers fill certain jobs in 2012, including participants’ lack of relevant qualifications and basic skills, according to GAO estimates. Eighty percent of local areas we surveyed said that employers had difficulty filling jobs in certain occupations. Local areas most frequently cited the following jobs as those that employers had difficulty filling: welders, machinists, heath care occupations, computer occupations, and truck drivers (see app. II for a complete list of occupations identified by WIBs as those that employers had difficulty filling). In almost all cases, the WIBs we surveyed also identified these as high growth occupations in their local areas. According to workforce experts, some of these jobs, such as welders and machinists, can be considered “middle-skilled” jobs because they require more than a high-school diploma but less than a 4- year college degree. Other jobs that require a 4-year degree or more— such as some registered nurses—are considered “high-skilled” jobs. Of the local areas that reported that employers had difficulty filling certain jobs and were able to identify these jobs, 81 percent indicated that employers used American Job Centers to try to fill these positions. Among the most common reasons why these local areas had difficulty supplying such workers were participants’ lack of relevant qualifications and lack of the basic skills needed to participate in training (see fig. 6). While DOL officials said that local areas should provide participants who lack skills and work supports with the services they need to enter training for middle-skilled jobs, they said it is not realistic to expect the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs to train low-skilled participants for high- skilled positions that require advanced degrees, due to the skill level and length of training required. However, DOL officials noted that these programs do serve some middle- and high-skilled participants who obtain employment after receiving only core services. In addition, workforce experts cited decreased funding and the lack of a performance measure on skill improvement as additional challenges. WIA funding has decreased by 24 percent since 2000, and experts we interviewed told us that local areas face difficult tradeoffs in making decisions about spreading limited training funds over a broad population of participants. Specifically, they said that because it takes more time and resources to prepare low-skilled participants to enter training, local areas must balance helping low-skilled workers improve their skills with serving as many individuals as possible. In addition, experts noted that WIA does not currently have a performance measure to track improvements in participants’ basic skills. Workforce experts we interviewed said that current measures reward states and local areas for placing participants into employment quickly and do not reward basic skills improvements or progress toward a degree or certificate. As a result of these challenges, experts said that local areas may not guide participants toward training programs for middle-skilled jobs, which tend to be longer and more expensive than other training programs and typically require a certain basic skill level. However, DOL officials disagreed that WIA performance measures encourage local areas to place participants into employment quickly. Also, DOL officials cited customer choice as a reason why some low-skilled participants do not receive training for middle-skilled jobs. Officials said that, when participants select training, they consider not only the guidance they receive from case managers but also their own interests and how long they can afford to be out of the workforce. To help participants in WIA and other programs improve their skills, gain employment, and progress in a career, DOL has coordinated with the Departments of Education (Education) and Health and Human Services (HHS) to fund and provide guidance for career pathways approaches, which link basic skills education, occupational training, and support services. According to these agencies, these approaches aim to enable individuals to secure industry relevant certification and obtain employment within an occupational area and to advance to higher levels of future education and employment in that area. In 2010, DOL and Education launched the Career Pathways Initiative by providing 1-year grants to nine states and two tribal entities to develop these approaches. Based on the lessons learned from these grants, DOL has taken steps to help other states and local areas implement these approaches. Specifically, DOL has issued guidance on developing career pathways systems; provided technical assistance tools, such as webinars; shared promising practices; and maintained a Career Pathways Community of Practice website. In addition, DOL, Education, and HHS—as members of the Career Pathways Working Group—have collaborated on joint technical assistance efforts. For example, in 2012, DOL issued a joint letter with Education and HHS to encourage local areas’ use of career pathways approaches to help prepare low-skilled participants for employment. The interagency working group plans to issue a national catalog of career pathways toolkits in the future. DOL has also funded grants that are not specifically targeted at career pathways approaches but can be used for this purpose. In 2012, DOL awarded 26 Workforce Innovation Fund grants to support innovative approaches for design and delivery of employment and training services; 17 of the 26 grantees are using these grants to develop career pathways approaches, according to DOL. DOL and workforce experts find career pathways approaches promising, and efforts are underway to gather more information about their implementation and effectiveness. According to DOL officials and experts we interviewed, career pathways approaches are a promising strategy that state and federal agencies should adopt to support lower-skilled individuals. Efforts are underway to collect information about how many states are using career pathways approaches. DOL conducted a preliminary review of the extent to which states are using these approaches, and found that all but seven states are participating in some type of career pathways initiative at either the state or local level. To supplement the information collected in this initial review, the Career Pathways Working Group plans to issue a national Request for Information (RFI) during program year 2013 to obtain more detailed feedback from states and local areas on career pathways successes and any obstacles to implementation. In addition, HHS has contracted with Abt Associates Inc. to conduct a 10-year evaluation of nine innovative career pathways programs across the country, known as the Innovative Strategies for Increasing Self-Sufficiency project. This evaluation will measure the effects of these programs on participants’ employment, earnings, and other outcomes, and will also include a study of program implementation and operations as well as a cost-benefit analysis. However, little is known about the extent to which local areas are using career pathways approaches—or how they are using these approaches— specifically to prepare participants for middle-skilled jobs that employers have difficulty filling. According to the guidance issued by the Career Pathways Working Group, one essential component of career pathways approaches is a specific focus on local workforce needs, and DOL officials said that these approaches are one way to prepare participants for middle-skilled jobs that employers have difficulty filling. Nevertheless, DOL and other agencies do not plan to collect and disseminate information on whether and how local areas are using these approaches to prepare participants for such jobs as part of the RFI or the evaluation of career pathways programs. According to federal government internal control standards, agencies should have information on whether their programs are meeting their intended objectives. whether and how local areas are using career pathways approaches to prepare participants for middle-skilled jobs that employers have difficulty filling, DOL may not be well-positioned to help local areas use these approaches to better meet employers’ needs. GAO, Internal Control Standards: Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G (Washington, D.C.: August 2001). the extent to which these programs are positioned to help supply workers for hard-to-fill jobs, our work suggests that the programs have difficulty supplying workers for certain types of middle-skilled jobs due to the low skill level of some program participants, among other reasons. While it appears that these participants are receiving training, their lack of basic skills may be an obstacle to obtaining training that would prepare them for the middle-skilled jobs that employers are having difficulty filling. Further, both DOL and workforce experts emphasized that this problem exists in a larger context, and that helping participants improve their basic skills can involve a considerable investment of time and resources. Given that a variety of factors affect whether skilled jobs are filled, it may not be realistic to expect the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs to fully meet all employers’ needs, but these programs can play an important role. DOL has made efforts to help improve participants’ skills through career pathways approaches and plans to gather more information about their implementation. Despite these efforts, our findings suggest that there are some local areas in which employers’ needs for certain types of middle-skilled workers are not being met. Without additional information— beyond what it already plans to collect—on whether and how local areas are using career pathways approaches to prepare participants for the types of middle-skilled jobs that employers are having difficulty filling, DOL may not be well-positioned to help local areas use these approaches to better meet employers’ needs. To help local areas better meet employers’ needs for skilled workers, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor: collect information on the use of career pathways approaches by local areas specifically to prepare workers for the types of middle-skilled jobs that employers have difficulty filling; and to the extent such approaches are being used, disseminate information about them, such as implementation challenges, strategies, and results. We provided a draft of this report and the e-supplement containing our detailed survey results to the Secretary of Labor for review and comment. DOL provided a written response (see app. III). DOL agreed with our recommendation and did not provide any comments on the e-supplement. Specifically, DOL’s response noted that the agency is committed to promoting effective labor market information resources and using career pathways approaches to prepare workers for career advancement and to help employers gain a skilled workforce. DOL agreed that there is value in learning more about how local areas are using career pathways approaches. To identify promising career pathways approaches used by local areas, DOL plans to (1) leverage existing investments in the Workforce Innovation Fund and other DOL initiatives; (2) continue to engage with federal and non-federal partners through the work of the interagency Career Pathways Working Group; and (3) widely disseminate information learned from studying these approaches through DOL’s career pathways Community of Practice, other communication vehicles, and technical assistance activities, as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and the Secretary of Labor. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. Our review focused on: 1) how local workforce areas have identified occupations that are in demand and how they have guided participants toward training for them; and 2) what challenges local workforce areas have faced in helping employers fill certain jobs. To address both objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, as well as the Department of Labor’s (DOL) guidance to states and local workforce areas. We also conducted a web-based survey of a nationally representative sample of 200 workforce investment boards (WIB) and interviewed nine WIBs that were not part of our survey sample (see WIB Survey and WIB Interviews below). In addition, we interviewed DOL officials as well as representatives from the National Association of Workforce Boards, the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, and the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. To address the challenges local areas face in helping employers fill certain jobs, we also interviewed representatives from the National Skills Coalition and the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP). We did not conduct a skills gap analysis as part of this study primarily because reliable data on the conditions associated with a skills gap were not available at the local or state levels (see Skills Gap Analysis below). To address both objectives, we conducted a web-based survey of a nationally representative sample of 200 WIBs. The questionnaire included questions about which sources of labor market information local areas used to identify demand occupations, the sources they found most useful, how they guided participants toward training, and the challenges they faced in guiding participants toward training in calendar year 2012. In addition, we asked respondents whether employers in their areas have had difficulty filling certain jobs, and if so, the challenges they have experienced in helping employers fill those jobs. We selected a stratified random probability sample from DOL’s list of all 578 WIBs nationwide as of November 2012, which included both local and statewide WIBs. With this probability sample, each member of the study population had a nonzero probability of being included, and that probability could be computed for any member. We stratified the population into 10 groups based on U.S. Census Bureau regions to ensure geographic distribution. Each sample element was subsequently weighted in the analysis to account statistically for all the members of the population, including those who were not selected. In designing the sample, we did not consider indicators of the size of the local areas overseen by WIBs, such as population or amount of WIA funding received because such data were not readily available. Our sample included 195 local WIBs and 5 statewide WIBs. 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 four local WIBs and one statewide WIB over the telephone. To ensure that we obtained a variety of perspectives on our survey, we selected WIBs with diversity on the following criteria: 1) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) region, 2) whether the WIB was located in an urban or rural area, and 3) state and local unemployment rate. Based on feedback from these pretests, we revised the questionnaire in order to improve the clarity of the questions. An independent survey specialist within GAO also reviewed a draft of the questionnaire prior to its administration. In addition, we asked knowledgeable DOL officials to comment on the questionnaire and incorporated their comments as appropriate. After completing the pretests, we administered the survey. On March 7, 2013, we sent an e-mail announcement of the questionnaire to executive directors and other knowledgeable representatives of the WIBs in our sample, notifying them that our online questionnaire would be activated within a week. On March 13, 2013, we sent a second e-mail message to these WIB representatives in which we informed them that the questionnaire was available online and provided them with unique passwords and usernames. We also followed up by telephone and e-mail with these WIB representatives as needed to clarify their survey responses. We collected responses through April 15, 2013. We received completed questionnaires from 148 WIBs, for a 74 percent unweighted GAO-14-20SP response rate. Detailed survey results are available at: . We used standard descriptive statistics to analyze responses to the questionnaire. All estimates based on the survey results are subject to sampling error. Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. We used the results of the survey to create estimates about the population of all WIBs nationwide. All percentage estimates from the survey have their sampling margins of error calculated at the 95 percent level of confidence. To minimize 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 WIBs 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 followed up by telephone and e-mail with WIB representatives who had not responded to the survey to encourage them to complete it. 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 WIB representatives when necessary to clarify their responses. 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. Concurrently with our survey, we interviewed nine WIBs that were not part of our survey sample to gather in-depth information about selected survey topics. To select WIBs for interviews, we selected five states with diversity regarding the following criteria: 1) state unemployment rate, 2) geography, and 3) whether DOL officials identified the state as having promising practices in using labor market information to guide participants toward training. In applying these criteria, we ensured that we selected one state with a statewide WIB (see table 2). We then randomly selected two WIBs in each of the four states with local WIBs (California, Michigan, New Jersey, and Virginia). In each of these states, we asked representatives of the state WIB to classify each local WIB in their state as either primarily urban or primarily rural. We then randomly selected one primarily urban and one primarily rural WIB in each state to interview, excluding those that were part of our survey sample. We interviewed a total of eight local WIBs and one statewide WIB. Of the eight local WIBs, five were primarily urban and three were primarily rural. We did not conduct a skills gap analysis as part of this study primarily because reliable data on the conditions associated with a skills gap were not available at the local or state levels. According to officials from DOL’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the following conditions would be associated with a skills gap in a particular occupation: 1) jobs remain unfilled for a longer-than-normal time period, 2) wages are increasing, and 3) unemployment is low. We explored the possibility of using existing datasets to identify occupations that have rising wages and low unemployment rates, and then asking the WIBs we surveyed whether employers in their local areas had difficulty filling these jobs. However, we concluded that reliable data on occupational unemployment rates are only available on the national level. Because national data may not reflect local labor market conditions, we did not incorporate such data into our survey. Instead, we asked the WIBs we surveyed to list occupations that employers in their area had difficulty filling and then coded their responses to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes. For more information on the occupational coding, see appendix II. Specifically, BLS’ Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program provides data on employment and wages by occupation, but officials told us that local-level OES data on occupational wage growth may not be reliable, and noted that data on occupational unemployment rates are not available at the local level. In addition, we determined that state-level data on occupational unemployment rates are not sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Specifically, we were unable to use state-level data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) to identify occupations with lower than average unemployment rates because the standard error associated with these estimates was over 20 percent in states with small populations. While data from online job openings—such as that published by The Conference Board—are used by some researchers to estimate state-level unemployment by broad occupational categories, these data are not available at the local level, and the reliability and validity of the data is not known. We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to December 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Our web-based survey of 200 workforce investment boards (WIB) included a question asking if employers in their local area had difficulty filling jobs in certain occupations in calendar year 2012 (see appendix I for more information on the survey’s methodology). If WIBs answered yes, they were asked to list up to five occupations that employers had difficulty filling in open-ended boxes and also to indicate if the WIB considered each occupation to be high growth in its local area. A total of 110 WIBs listed one occupation that was difficult to fill, 95 WIBs listed 2 occupations, 70 WIBs listed 3 occupations, 47 WIBs listed 4 occupations, and 32 WIBs listed 5 occupations. We coded these open-ended responses to the 2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes. The 2010 SOC system is used by federal statistical agencies to classify workers into occupational categories for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating data. In order to code the survey responses to the most appropriate SOC code, we searched the SOC titles or definitions or the related Direct Match Title File (DMTF) on keywords or phrases provided in the open-ended survey responses. Survey responses were coded to the most detailed SOC code allowable based on the search results. In many cases, there was a one- to-one match at the detailed SOC level for many detailed occupations, including registered nurses, welders, and machinists. Survey responses that had a one-to-one match at a broad, minor group, or major group SOC level were coded at that higher level, including engineers and driver/sales workers and truck drivers. Some survey responses resulted in multiple matches at the detailed SOC level. If all of the matches were among related occupations, the response was coded at the SOC level that incorporated all of the title matches. For example, a survey response of web designer and programmer matched to several detailed occupations that could be rolled up into the minor group of computer occupations. Some survey responses matched to multiple detailed occupations that could not be rolled up to a higher SOC level. For example, a survey response of accounting matched to accountants and auditors which is a business and financial occupation, and also to bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks which is an office and administrative support occupation. Responses were coded to more than one SOC code if May 2012 Occupational Employment Survey data indicated that workers were employed in all of the matched occupations in the metropolitan statistical area that contained the WIB. The most codes that were assigned to one survey response were two codes. Of the 354 survey responses that were coded, only 17 responses were assigned two SOC codes resulting in a total of 371 SOC codes assigned. Survey respondents frequently cited manufacturing (15) or advanced manufacturing (14), which are considered industries, not occupations, and matched to multiple SOC codes in different occupational groups. We created separate categories for these two responses in order to preserve the specificity of these responses given the relatively large number of survey responses where WIBs indicated these jobs were difficult to fill. Similarly, we created a separate code for the 20 responses that just stated health care without specifying an occupation, and also for the 7 responses that just stated nurse without specifying registered nurse or licensed practical nurse. Other survey responses that were vague or could not otherwise be matched to SOC occupations were coded as unknown. A second analyst reviewed the SOC code matches and codes assigned by the first analyst to see if the assigned codes had face validity. In cases where there was disagreement or additional information was needed, the two analysts met to reconcile differences. A third analyst independently verified the counts of the codes listed in table 3 below. The number of coded occupations represents those most frequently cited by WIBs that responded to the survey question and cannot be generalized beyond that population. In addition to the contact named above, Patrick DiBattista (Assistant Director), Caitlin Croake, Hedieh Fusfield, Linda Siegel, and Paul Wright made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Carl Barden, Jessica Botsford, Ted Burik, David Chrisinger, David Dornisch, Jill Lacey, Kathy Leslie, Mimi Nguyen, and Rhiannon Patterson. Workforce Investment Act: DOL Should Do More to Improve the Quality of Participant Data. GAO-14-4. (Washington, D.C.: December 2013). Workforce Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations between Workforce Boards and Employers Helped Meet Local Needs. GAO-12-97. (Washington, D.C.: January 19, 2012). Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help Gauge Employer Involvement. GAO-07-167. (Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2006). Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650. (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005). Labor Market Information: Trends and Issues in Funding of State Programs. GAO-03-336. (Washington, D.C.: December 20, 2002).

Summary: The economy is recovering from the recession, but employers still have difficulty filling certain jobs. DOL's Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult and Dislocated Worker programs are designed in part to help employers find the skilled workers they need. The programs provide participants with services including job training, which must be for occupations that are in demand. However, questions have been raised about the extent to which these programs are positioned to help supply workers for jobs that employers have difficulty filling. The conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 mandated that GAO assess the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs. This report addresses (1) how local workforce areas have identified occupations that are in demand and how they have guided participants toward training for them; and (2) what challenges local workforce areas have faced in helping employers fill certain jobs. GAO conducted a web-based survey of a nationally representative sample of 200 local workforce investment boards (WIB), which oversee local workforce areas, and used the results to create estimates about the population of all WIBs nationwide. GAO also interviewed DOL officials and workforce organizations. Based on survey results for calendar year 2012, GAO estimates that most local areas used various sources of information to identify occupations that are in demand (i.e., available jobs and occupations that are projected to grow). Local areas found all of the sources of information they used to be at least moderately useful. To identify occupations that are in demand, GAO estimates that nearly 90 percent of local areas used state job banks and occupational projections, both of which are funded by the Department of Labor (DOL). All percentages presented on this highlights page are estimates from the survey and have a sampling error of no larger than plus or minus 7 percentage points. In addition, 93 percent of areas used at least one local initiative, such as a partnership with the local economic development agency, to identify such jobs. As compared to other sources, areas reported using local initiatives because they provided more detailed information and better reflected local employers' needs. To guide participants toward training, most local areas required them to complete certain activities, such as meeting with a case manager to discuss training options (80 percent) or completing a skills assessment (78 percent). Most local areas faced challenges in guiding participants toward training. Specifically, local areas faced challenges related to participants' lack of financial or work supports, such as child care or transportation (67 percent); participants' lack of the basic skills necessary even to participate in training (66 percent); difficulty finding training providers who could quickly adapt curricula to employers' changing needs (62 percent); and high training costs (54 percent). However, in 57 percent of local areas, these challenges did not affect their ability to guide participants toward training. Local areas had difficulty helping employers fill certain jobs for a variety of reasons, including the low skills of some participants, according to GAO estimates. Eighty percent of local areas reported that employers had difficulty filling certain jobs, some of which can be considered "middle-skilled" jobs, such as welders and machinists, because they require more than a high-school diploma but less than a 4-year college degree. These local areas had difficulty supplying such workers because participants lacked relevant qualifications or the basic skills needed to participate in related training, among other reasons. To help participants improve their skills, DOL and other agencies have encouraged the use of career pathways approaches that combine job training with basic skills education and support services. According to these agencies, such approaches aim to enable participants to secure industry relevant certification and obtain employment within an occupational area and advance to higher levels of future education and employment in the area. However, little is known about the extent to which local areas are using career pathways approaches--or how they are using these approaches--specifically to prepare participants for middle-skilled jobs that employers have had difficulty filling. Without information on whether and how local areas are using these approaches to prepare participants for such jobs, DOL may not be well-positioned to help local areas use these approaches to better meet employers' needs. GAO recommends that DOL collect and disseminate information on how local areas have used career pathways approaches to prepare workers for middle-skilled jobs that employers have difficulty filling. DOL agreed with our recommendation..