The Workforce Investment Act created a new, comprehensive workforce investment system designed to change the way employment and training services are delivered. When WIA was enacted, in 1998, it replaced the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) with three new programs—Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth—that allow for a broader range of services to the general public, no longer using income to determine eligibility for all program services. In addition to establishing these three new programs, WIA requires that services for these programs, along with those of a number of other employment and training programs, including the Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service, be provided through a single service delivery system—the one-stop system. States were required to implement these changes by July 1, 2000. Sixteen categories of programs, receiving an estimated $15 billion from four separate federal agencies, must provide services through the system. (See table 1.) Each state must have one or more designated local workforce investment areas, and as of April 2007, the 50 states reported having 563 local workforce investment areas. Nine states reported having the entire state as its workforce investment area, and California reported having the most local workforce investment areas (50). (See app. III for additional data about the numbers of local workforce investment areas and comprehensive one-stop centers, and related information.) Each local area must have at least one comprehensive one-stop center where core services for all mandatory programs are accessible. WIA allows flexibility in the way these mandatory program partners provide services through the one- stop system, allowing colocation, electronic linkages, or referrals. While WIA requires these mandatory partners to participate, it does not provide additional funds to operate one-stop systems and support one-stop partnerships. As a result, mandatory partners are expected to share the costs of developing and operating one-stop centers. In addition to mandatory partners, one-stop centers have the flexibility to include other optional partners, such as TANF or the Food Stamp Employment and Training program, in the one-stop system to better meet specific state and local workforce development needs. Services may also be offered at satellite or affiliated sites—designated locations that provide access to at least one employment and training program. About $3.3 billion was appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for the three WIA programs—Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth. From 2001 to 2007, the total number of comprehensive one-stop centers in the 50 states declined by 7 percent, and during the same period, the total number of satellite or affiliated sites decreased by 13 percent. Since 2003, 19 states reported a decline in the number of comprehensive one-stop centers and frequently identified a decrease in funds as one of the primary reasons. In our 2007 survey, states reported that 13 of the 16 mandatory programs required under WIA were available at the majority of comprehensive one-stop centers. States reported that three key mandatory programs—WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and the Employment Service—continued to be available on-site at the majority of the one-stop centers. More states also reported that some programs were available at one-stop centers electronically or through referral than in 2001. While states reported they were providing Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service on-site at one-stop centers, some states also provided services through stand-alone Employment Service facilities—offices that focus primarily on assistance funded by the Employment Service. Eighteen states reported operating one or more stand-alone Employment Service offices; 9 of these states reported having at least one unaffiliated stand- alone office outside the one-stop delivery system. States reported that the majority of the physical locations—the buildings that contain the one-stop delivery system—were leased or rented in 2007. Only 10 percent were owned by the state. The total number of comprehensive one-stop centers has declined since we last reviewed it in 2001. Over the 6-year period, the number of one-stop centers across the 50 states has declined from 1,756 in 2001 to 1,637 in 2007. (See fig. 2.) Over the last 4 years, 19 states reported a decrease in one-stop centers, frequently identifying a decrease in funds as one of the primary reasons. In contrast, 10 states reported an increase during this period, citing, among other reasons, an increase in demand for services and an increase in the number of on-site partners. Changes in the number of comprehensive one-stop centers in the last 4 years were generally relatively small. Thirty-five states reported little (less than 10 percent) or no change in the total number of comprehensive one- stop centers. However, some states reported large changes, including 5 states that reported more than a 25 percent reduction in the number of one-stop centers. Connecticut, for example, reported more than a 35 percent decrease in one-stop centers, from 11 to 7 centers, a change that state officials attributed to a reduction in funding that caused one-stop centers to be closed or redesignated as satellite sites. Conversely, 4 states reported increases of 25 percent or more in the number of one-stop centers. For example, Montana reported a seven-fold increase, from 2 to 14 one-stop centers, as part of a statewide restructuring of its one-stop delivery system that involved converting former satellite and affiliated sites into comprehensive one-stop centers. (See app. IV for detailed information about the numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers and satellite or affiliated sites and changes over time.) From 2001 to 2007, the total number of satellite or affiliated sites across the 50 states declined by 13 percent, from 2,032 to 1,764. However, the number of satellite sites has increased slightly in the last 4 years. Between 2003 and 2007, 17 states reported increasing the number of satellite sites. Illinois, for example, reported a 45 percent increase in satellite sites (from 53 to 77) to meet the demand in underserved areas and to respond to specific large dislocation events. In contrast, 17 states reported a decline in the number of satellite sites. For example, in Florida, the number decreased by 56 percent—from 39 to 17—because of ongoing funding cuts. In other states, however, the decrease in the number of satellite sites was often the result of a change in the states’ official designation of satellite and affiliated sites. Fifteen states reported no change in the number of satellite sites since 2003. (See app. IV for detailed information about the numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers and satellite or affiliated sites and changes over time.) The use of satellite sites in rural areas has changed in recent years, according to a 2005 study sponsored by Labor. In the five localities that the researchers reviewed, the rural local workforce investment areas were focusing more on developing comprehensive one-stop centers than on creating multiple, dispersed satellite or affiliated sites. Researchers attributed the move away from satellite sites to comprehensive centers to a number of reasons, including the increase in the availability of electronic access to core services, the greater ease of supervising colocated staff, the increased visibility of comprehensive centers, and the fact that affiliated sites often had limited hours that made them less attractive. In 2007, states reported that 13 of the 16 mandatory programs required under WIA were available at the majority of comprehensive one-stop centers. States reported that three key mandatory programs—WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and the Employment Service—continued to be available on-site at the majority of the one-stop centers. More states also reported that some programs’ services were available at one-stop centers electronically or through referral. These programs included Job Corps, Senior Community Service Employment, and Adult Education and Literacy. (See table 2.) In addition, states reported that services for an optional program, TANF, were available in one-stop centers in more states in 2007 than in 2001. Sixteen states reported that TANF was available in the majority of one-stop centers in 2001, whereas 30 states reported that TANF was available at the typical comprehensive one-stop center in 2007. (See app. V for additional information about program services provided at a typical one-stop center across all 50 states.) While states reported they were providing Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service on-site at one-stop centers, some states also provided services through stand-alone Employment Service facilities—offices that focus primarily on job search and placement assistance. Overall, 18 states reported in our 2007 survey that they had at least one stand-alone Employment Service office. Nine states reported that at least one of these stand-alone offices were unaffiliated and not part of the one-stop delivery system. Six of these states reported that they operated all of their stand- alone Employment Service offices as unaffiliated sites completely outside the one-stop system. This represents a modest decrease from the figures Labor reported in 2006, when 19 states overall were identified as having at least one stand-alone Employment Service office, 13 of which were operating parallel systems disconnected from the local one-stop centers to a substantial degree. (See fig. 3.) (See app. VI for additional information about stand-alone employment service offices.) The Wagner-Peyser Act requires that all labor exchange services be provided as part of the one-stop delivery system. Labor’s implementing regulations provide that Employment Service offices may not exist outside the one-stop delivery system, but allow stand-alone Employment Service offices to operate as affiliated sites or as electronically or technologically linked access points. Labor has expressed concern that these stand-alone Employment Service offices cause confusion for individuals and employers and promote duplication of effort. While Labor has the option to withhold funding, it has not done so, but has taken other steps to encourage states to provide all employment services through the one-stop system.