Labor, established as a Department in 1913, administers and enforces a variety of federal labor laws guaranteeing workers’ rights to a workplace free from safety and health hazards, a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay, family and medical leave, freedom from employment discrimination, and unemployment insurance. Labor also protects workers’ pension rights; provides for job training programs; helps workers find jobs; works to strengthen free collective bargaining; and keeps track of changes in employment, prices, and other national economic measures. Although Labor seeks to assist all Americans who need and want to work, special efforts are made to meet the unique job market problems of youths, older workers, economically disadvantaged and dislocated workers, and other groups. In fiscal year 1997, Labor has an estimated budget of $34.4 billion and is authorized 16,614 full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff-years. About three-fourths of Labor’s budget is composed of mandatory spending on income maintenance programs, such as the unemployment insurance program. The administration’s fiscal year 1998 budget request is $37.9 billion in budget authority and 17,143 FTE staff. The budget request includes $12 billion for Labor’s major budget themes—an increase of $1.7 billion over fiscal year 1997. Included in the request for fiscal year 1998 is $750 million in mandatory funding for a new welfare-to-work jobs program. Labor’s many program activities fall into two major categories: enhancing workers’ skills through job training and ensuring worker protection.Figure 1 shows the organizational structure of the Department. Labor’s workforce development responsibilities are housed in the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service. Together, they have a fiscal year 1997 budget of about $6.5 billion and 1,595 FTEs. Labor’s employment training programs include multiple programs authorized by the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), such as those for economically disadvantaged adults and youth and workers who lose their jobs because of plant closings or downsizing and Job Corps, an intensive residential program for severely disadvantaged youth. Table 1 shows Labor’s appropriations and staff-year spending for fiscal year 1997. Administration. Together, these units have 9,020 FTEs and a budget of $915 million for fiscal year 1997. uncertain how this fragmented system will be able to meet the employment demands of those affected by the recent welfare reform legislation. A major challenge for Labor is to facilitate workforce development within the context of a conglomeration of programs operated by Labor and 14 other federal departments and agencies. Table 2 shows the number of different employment training programs that existed in fiscal year 1995, their target groups, and fiscal year 1995 appropriations. For example, we found that 9 programs targeting economically disadvantaged individuals had similar goals; often served the same categories of people; and provided many of the same services using separate, often parallel, delivery structures. Congress could consider to reduce the deficit. Alternatively, the Congress could spend the same amount of money and serve more people. Further, consolidating similar employment training programs could result in improved opportunities to increase effectiveness in service delivery. For example, consolidating programs could improve the assistance provided to the target populations because individuals would be more likely to receive the mix of services needed to achieve training or placement goals. And, getting needed services might be less confusing and frustrating to clients, employers, and administrators. In anticipation of federal consolidation legislation, and to improve their local service delivery, many states are moving ahead with their own consolidation plans. Labor has engaged in several efforts to assist states in these consolidation efforts. For example, Labor has promoted the development of “one-stop career centers.” These centers are designed to transform an array of employment training programs into an integrated service delivery system for job-seekers and employers. Labor expects them to identify the jobs that are available, the skills they require, and the institutions that have proven track records of preparing people for new work. This information will probably be available largely through computer links. As of February 1996, 54 states and jurisdictions had received planning or implementation grants to establish one-stop centers. In addition, Labor and the Department of Education jointly administer the school-to-work program—a program designed to build integrated learning and employment opportunities for youth. The proposed fiscal year 1998 budget includes $200 million for each agency to ensure that “seed capital” grants to states and communities continue. data. In our review of 62 programs for which the economically disadvantaged individuals were eligible, we found that less than half of the programs obtained data on whether or not participants obtained jobs after they received services. To its credit, Labor has collected much basic information, including outcome data, on its major employment training programs, such as Job Corps and other programs funded under JTPA. It has also conducted some evaluations to assess the impact of its programs. However, our reviews have shown that existing performance measures and studies still do not provide the kind of information that would provide confidence that funds are being spent to the greatest advantage of participants. Our reviews of the Job Corps program illustrate some of the weaknesses in current data collection and evaluation efforts. Job Corps is a national employment training program that provides severely disadvantaged youth with comprehensive services, generally in a residential setting, at a cost of about $1 billion a year to serve about 66,000 participants. Job Corps has a list of performance measures on which the over 100 individual centers are ranked each year. Moreover, to demonstrate the effectiveness of Job Corps, Labor cites the positive results of a national impact study. We have raised questions, however, about how valuable the information from these sources is in determining whether the high costs are justified by program outcomes. Jobs Corps reported that, nationally, 59 percent of its students obtained jobs in fiscal year 1993. However, when we surveyed a sample of employers identified in Job Corps records, we were left with serious concerns about the validity of reported job placement information. Despite Job Corps placement verification procedures, we found that about 15 percent of the reported placements in our sample were potentially invalid. In addition, we found that about half of the jobs obtained by students from the sites we visited were low-skill jobs—such as fast food worker—unrelated to the training provided by Job Corps. Labor initiated a major impact evaluation of the Jobs Corps program. This study, the initial results of which are expected to be available in 1998, should be extremely useful to inform decisions about the future of the program. The passage of the recent welfare reform legislation is likely to have an impact on the structure and delivery of employment training programs at the state and local levels. Because of the work requirements imposed by that legislation, many individuals formerly on welfare will be needing job assistance and training services. The responsibility for service delivery lies with state and local offices, yet Labor has an important role because of its expertise and experience. Labor can encourage and facilitate, as appropriate, the integration of employment training services that may be required to meet the needs of the welfare population. How to serve those individuals transitioning from welfare to work, while at the same time meeting the service needs of dislocated workers and other client populations, is a challenge for Labor. Concerns have been raised about the availability of appropriate jobs, the level of training and skills required for jobs, the impact of competition for low-skilled jobs on the wages of low-skilled workers, and the extent to which the current employment training system can absorb and provide needed services to the expanded welfare population. In addition, it is critical that Labor and other agencies providing services consider the employment training needs of welfare clients in the process of providing job placement assistance. Our work on promising employment training practices shows that providing occupational skills alone is not the answer. Equally, or perhaps even more, important are employability skills—the ability not only to get a job but to keep a job.Concerns have been raised that in the rush to place welfare clients in jobs, if the appropriate mix of skills is not provided, many clients potentially will lose their jobs and go back on welfare. to monitor the situation and be responsive to the needs of states and localities as they transition individuals from welfare to work. For example, our work on identifying strategies used by successful employment training projects is the type of information that can be shared with states to assist their efforts. When we testified before this Subcommittee almost 2 years ago about the overall federal role in worker protection, we stressed the need for Labor to change its approach to one that was more service oriented and made more efficient use of agency resources. Some evidence exists that Labor has moved in that direction, especially in OSHA. But this change has not been without controversy, and further opportunities exist to develop alternative regulatory approaches. In addition to the overall need to consider alternatives to current regulatory approaches, Labor faces regulatory challenges in two specific areas: (1) redesigning the wage determination process under the Davis-Bacon Act and (2) as a result of recent legislative action, developing and enforcing regulations regarding portability of employer-provided health insurance. well as make enforcement less of a “gotcha” exercise and more one that recognizes good faith compliance efforts. These changes would also have the potential for improving the way limited agency resources are used for regulatory purposes. Changes in OSHA’s regulatory approach illustrate Labor’s action in this direction. In May 1995, the administration announced three regulatory reform initiatives to “enhance safety, trim paperwork, and transform OSHA.” This action was considered necessary because, despite OSHA’s efforts, the number of workplace injuries and illnesses was still too high, with over 6,000 workers dying each year from workplace injuries and 6 million suffering nonfatal workplace injuries. In addition, the administration acknowledged that the public saw OSHA as driven too often by numbers and rules, not by smart enforcement and results.