Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies 
to Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization
(18-JUN-03, GAO-03-884T).					 
                                                                 
This testimony highlights findings from today's report on	 
strategies that exemplary one-stop centers have implemented to	 
strengthen and integrate services for customers and to build a	 
solid one-stop infrastructure. It also shares findings and	 
recommendations from our past work on challenges that states and 
localities have experienced as they implement WIA, which may be  
helpful as WIA is reauthorized. 				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-884T					        
    ACCNO:   A07260						        
  TITLE:     Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised    
Strategies to Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for	 
Reauthorization 						 
     DATE:   06/18/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Disadvantaged persons				 
	     Employment 					 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Workfare						 
	     Temporary Assistance for Needy Families		 
	     Program						 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-884T

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, United States Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 10: 00 a. m. EDT Wednesday, June
18, 2003 WORKFORCE

INVESTMENT ACT Exemplary One- Stops Devised Strategies to Strengthen
Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization

Statement of Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director Education, Workforce, and Income
Security Issues

GAO- 03- 884T

The workforce development system envisioned under WIA represents a
fundamental shift from prior systems, and barely 3 years have passed since
it was fully implemented. States and localities have found ways to use the
flexibility in WIA to develop creative new approaches to providing
services through their one- stop systems. In particular, a group of 14
one- stops,

identified as exemplary by government officials and workforce development
experts, developed promising strategies in several key areas. To
streamline services for job seekers, they ensured that job seekers could
readily access needed services, made sure that staff were knowledgeable
about all of the one- stop services available, or consolidated case
management and intake procedures. To engage and serve employers, the
centers dedicated specialized staff to work with employers or industries,
tailored services to meet specific employers* needs, or worked with
employers through intermediaries. To build a solid one- stop
infrastructure, the centers found innovative ways to develop and
strengthen program partnerships and to raise additional funds beyond those
provided under WIA. GAO*s work on WIA implementation over the past 3 years
has identified a

number of issues that should be considered during WIA reauthorization.
First, the performance measurement system is flawed-- the need to meet
certain performance measures may be causing one- stops to deny services to
some clients who may most need them; there is no measure that assesses
overall one- stop performance; and the outcome data are outdated by the

time they are available and are not useful in day- to- day program
management. Second, funding issues continue to plague officials. The
funding formula used to allocate funds to states and local areas does not
reflect current program design and often causes unwarranted fluctuations
in funding levels from year to year. In addition, WIA provided no separate
funding source to support one- stop infrastructure, and developing
equitable cost sharing agreements has not always been successful. Third,
many training providers consider the current process for certifying their
eligibility to be overly burdensome, resulting in reduced training options
for job seekers as providers have declined to serve WIA- funded clients.
Finally, state officials have told GAO that they need more help from the
U. S. Department of Labor in the form of clearer guidance and greater
opportunities to share promising practices in managing and providing
services through their one- stop centers. This testimony highlights
findings

from today*s report on strategies that exemplary one- stop centers have
implemented to strengthen and integrate services for customers and to
build a solid onestop infrastructure. It also shares findings and
recommendations from GAO*s past work on

challenges that states and localities have experienced as they implement
the Workforce

Investment Act (WIA), which may be helpful as WIA is reauthorized.

Because little is known about whether promising one- stop service delivery
approaches are

meeting customers* needs, GAO has recommended that the Secretary of Labor
collaborate with other federal agencies to develop a research agenda that
examines the

impacts of these promising approaches on one- stop customer satisfaction
and outcomes. In addition, GAO has recommended that the Secretary take
steps to alleviate problems pertaining to the

WIA performance measurement system, WIA allocation formulas and one- stop
infrastructure funding, and the process for certifying eligible training
providers. Finally, GAO has

suggested that Labor provide clearer guidance and greater opportunities
for one- stop administrators to share promising practices in one- stop
service delivery and management. www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03-
884T. To view the full product, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above. For more information, contact
Sigurd Nilsen, (202) 512- 7215, nilsens@ gao. gov. Highlights of GAO- 03-
884T, a testimony

before the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, United States Senate

June 18, 2003

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT

Exemplary One- Stops Devised Strategies to Strengthen Services, but
Challenges Remain for Reauthorization

Page 1 GAO- 03- 884T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for inviting me
here today to present the findings from our recent work on the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA). As you know, WIA represented a significant departure
from earlier job training programs. Passed in 1998 and implemented by most
states in July 2000, it was designed to unify a fragmented employment and
training system and create a single, universal system* a one- stop system
that could serve the needs of all job seekers and employers. WIA sought to
streamline the delivery of federally funded employment and training
services, enabling job seekers to make informed choices among training
providers and course offerings, and enhancing the private- sector role in
the workforce system. WIA gave states and localities flexibility in
deciding how to implement the one- stop system, allowing local one- stops
to tailor their systems to local needs. Four separate federal agencies*
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Education, and
Housing and Urban Development (HUD)* fund about 17 categories of programs
that are required to provide services through the one- stop system. In
addition to programs that are required to take part in the new system,
Labor encourages states and localities to include optional partners, such
as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), in order to better meet
the specific workforce development needs of their local area. Labor takes
a lead role in this new system and is responsible for assessing the

effectiveness of Labor- funded programs and for providing guidance to
states and localities as programs deliver their services through the
onestop system. Since WIA was enacted, we have issued numerous reports
that addressed

state and local efforts related to WIA, including challenges in
implementing the new training provider system, new partnership
requirements, and the new performance measurement system, as well as
issues related to funding. While much of our past work has focused on
challenges pertaining to WIA implementation, today we are releasing a
report that examines how states and localities have used the flexibility
in WIA to develop promising approaches to streamline jobseeker services,
engage employers, and strengthen one- stop infrastructure. 1 My testimony
today will discuss (1) promising strategies to improve one- stop services

1 Workforce Investment Act: One- Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information
Sharing is Needed,

GAO- 03- 725 (Washington, D. C.: June 18, 2003).

Page 2 GAO- 03- 884T

and operations being implemented by a group of 14 one- stop centers that
were identified as exemplary and (2) challenges identified in our previous
work that states and localities have faced in implementing WIA.

In summary, in the barely 3 years since the full implementation of WIA,
states and localities have found ways to use the flexibility in WIA to
develop creative new ways to improve their one- stop systems. In
particular, a group of 14 one- stops, identified as exemplary by
government officials and workforce development experts, developed
promising

strategies in the key areas of streamlining services for job seekers,
engaging and serving employers, and building a solid one- stop
infrastructure. However, despite the successes state and local officials
are having as they implement WIA and continue to build relationships among
the myriad partners in this new, and dramatically different system,
challenges remain. First, the performance measurement system is flawed,
causing some one- stops to deny services to some clients who may be most
in need of them. Moreover, outcome data are outdated and are, therefore,
not useful for day- to- day program management. Second, funding issues
also continue to plague the system. The funding formulas used to allocate
funds to states and local areas do not reflect current program design and
has caused wide and unwarranted fluctuations in funding levels from year
to year. In addition, WIA provided no separate funding source to support
one- stop infrastructure, and developing equitable cost sharing agreements
has not always been successful. Third, many training providers consider
the current provisions for certifying their eligibility to be overly
burdensome, which may reduce training options for job seekers as providers
have withdrawn from the WIA system. Finally, state officials have told us
that they need more help from Labor in the form of clearer guidance and
instructions and greater opportunities to share promising practices in
managing and providing services through their one- stop centers.

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,
including job search assistance, assessment, and training for eligible
Background

Page 3 GAO- 03- 884T

individuals. 2 In addition to establishing three new programs, WIA
requires that a number of other employment- related services be provided
through a one- stop system, designed to make employment and training
services easier for job seeker customers to access. WIA also requires that
the onestop system engage the employer customer by helping employers
identify and recruit skilled workers. While WIA gives states and
localities flexibility in implementing these requirements, the law
emphasizes that the one- stop system should be a customer- focused and
comprehensive system. Such a

system gives job seekers the job search and support services they need and
provides services that better meet employers* needs. (See fig. 1.)

Figure 1: One- Stop Customers Include Job Seekers and Employers

The major hallmark of WIA is the consolidation of services through the
one- stop center system. Seventeen categories of programs* termed
*mandatory partners** with appropriations totaling over $15 billion from
four separate federal agencies, are required to provide services through
the system. (See table 1.) 2 While WIA was enacted in 1998, states were
not required to implement major provisions of WIA until July 1, 2000, when
JTPA*s repeal was effective.

Page 4 GAO- 03- 884T

Table 1: WIA*s Mandatory Programs, Their Related Federal Agencies, and
Fiscal Year 2003 Program Appropriations

Federal agency Mandatory program Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations

Department of Labor WIA Adult $898,778,000 WIA Dislocated Worker
1,461,145,495 WIA Youth 994,458,728

Employment Service (WagnerPeyser) 756,783,723 Trade adjustment assistance
programs 972,000,000 Veterans* employment and training programs
167,199,097 Unemployment Insurance 2,634,253,000 Job Corps 1,522,240,700
Welfare- to- Work grant- funded

programs 0 Senior Community Service Employment Program 442,306,200
Employment and training for migrant and seasonal farm workers 77,330,066
Employment and training for Native Americans 55,636,000 Department of
Education Vocational Rehabilitation

Program 2,506,948,000 Adult Education and Literacy 571,262,500 Vocational
Education (Perkins Act) 1,513,170,925 Department of Health

and Human Services (HHS)

Community Services Block Grant 645,762,085 Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)

HUD- administered employment and training 65,000,000

Total $15,284,274,519

Source: U. S. General Accounting Office, Multiple Employment and Training
Programs: Funding and Performance Measures for Major Programs, GAO- 03-
589 (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 18, 2003) and Labor. WIA allows flexibility
in the way these mandatory partners provide

services through the one- stop system, allowing co- location in one
building, electronic linkages, or referrals to off- site partner programs.
While WIA requires these mandatory partners to participate, WIA did 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.

Page 5 GAO- 03- 884T

Beyond the mandatory partners, one- stop centers have the flexibility to
include other partners in the one- stop system. Labor suggests that these
additional, or optional partners, may help one- stop systems better meet
specific state and local workforce development needs. These optional
partners may include TANF 3 or local private organizations. States have
the option of mandating particular optional partners to participate in
their one- stop systems. For example, in 2001, 28 states had formal
agreements between TANF and WIA to involve TANF in the one- stop system. 4
In addition, localities may adopt other partners to meet the specific
needs of the community.

About $3.3 billion was appropriated in fiscal year 2003 for the three WIA
programs* Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth. The formulas for
distributing these funds to the states were left largely unchanged from
those used to distribute funds under JTPA and are based on such factors as
unemployment rates, including the number of long- term unemployed, and the
relative number of low- income adults and youth in the population. In
order to receive their full funding allocation, states must demonstrate

the effectiveness of their three WIA programs by tracking and reporting a
variety of performance measures. These performance measures gauge program
results in the areas of job placement and retention, earnings change,
skill attainment and customer satisfaction. WIA requires states to use
Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records to gather this information about
WIA participants. 5 States are held accountable by Labor for their
performance in these areas and may suffer financial sanctions if they fail
to meet their expected performance standards. WIA did not establish any
comprehensive measures to assess the overall performance of the onestop
system. WIA also requires that training providers wishing to serve
individuals*

training needs through WIA*s Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs meet key
data reporting requirements, including completion rates, job placement
rates, and wages at placement for all students they serve, including those
not funded under WIA. WIA requires the collection of these outcome data so
that job seekers receiving training can use them to

3 TANF provides low- income families with income support and employment-
related assistance. 4 For more information on TANF participation in one-
stop centers, see GAO- 02- 739T.

5 In some cases, supplemental data sources may be used when UI data are
not available.

Page 6 GAO- 03- 884T

make more informed choices about training providers. Unlike prior systems,
WIA requires that individuals eligible for training under the Adult and
Dislocated Worker Programs receive vouchers* called Individual Training
Accounts* which they can use for the training provider and course offering
of their choice, within certain limitations. WIA also requires these data
so that states and localities can assess training providers* performance.
For example, a state might only allow training providers* courses with an
80- percent completion rate to remain on the training provider list. If a
course fails to meet that level, it would no longer be allowed to serve
WIA- funded individuals.

Finally, WIA called for the development of workforce investment boards to
oversee WIA implementation at the state and local levels. At the state
level, WIA requires, among other things, that the workforce investment
board assist the governor in helping to set up the system, establish
procedures and processes for ensuring accountability, and designate local
workforce investment areas. WIA also requires that boards be established
within each of the local workforce investment areas to carry out the
formal agreements developed between the boards and each partner and
oversee one- stop operations. WIA requires that private- sector
representatives chair the boards and make up the majority of board

members. This is to help ensure that the private sector is able to provide
information on the available employment opportunities and expanding career
fields and help develop ways to close the gap between job seekers and
labor market needs.

Page 7 GAO- 03- 884T

States and localities have found ways to use the flexibility in WIA to
develop creative new ways to serve job seekers and employers. In
particular, a group of 14 one- stops, identified as exemplary by
government officials and workforce development experts for our study of
promising

one- stop approaches, has developed strategies for streamlining services
for job seekers, engaging and serving employers, and building a solid
onestop infrastructure. 6 All of the 14 centers in the study streamlined
services for jobseekers by ensuring that they can readily access needed
services, by educating program staff about all of the one- stop services
available to job seekers, or by consolidating case management and intake
procedures. In addition, to engage employers and provide them needed
services, all of the

centers used strategies that included dedicating specialized staff to work
with employers or industries, tailoring services to meet specific
employers* needs, or working with employers through intermediaries, such
as Chambers of Commerce or economic development entities. Finally, to
provide the infrastructure needed to support better services for job
seekers and employers, many of the one- stops we visited found innovative
ways to develop and strengthen program partnerships and to raise
additional funds beyond those provided under WIA. (Figure 2 shows the
locations of the 14 one- stop centers we visited.)

6 The centers in our study represented a geographic and demographic mix,
ranged from rural to urban, and served from 500 to 42,500 customers each
month. Some of the sites, such as Kansas City, Missouri, represented a mix
of urban, suburban, and rural customers. They also represented a mix of
one- stop operators* those responsible for administering

the one- stop centers* including nonprofit organizations, a consortium of
one- stop partners, and local government entities. States and Localities

Have Embraced WIA*s Flexibility to Develop Promising Approaches to Serving
Job Seekers and Employers

Page 8 GAO- 03- 884T

Figure 2: GAO Site Visits to One- Stop Centers

Source: GAO site visits. CONNECT!

Sunnyvale, CA Job Link Santa Rosa, CA

Florida Maine

Central Texas Workforce Killeen, TX

Full Employment Council Kansas City, MO

WorkForce Essentials, Inc. Clarksville, TN South County

Employment Center Salt Lake City, UT

Arapahoe/ Douglas Works! Aurora, CO

Anoka County Workforce Center Blaine, MN

Kenosha County Job Center Kenosha, WI

The Job Center Dayton, OH

Erie Team PA CareerLink Erie, PA

The Work Place Boston, MA

Cumberland County One- Stop Vineland, NJ

Pike County JobSight Center Pikeville, KY

Page 9 GAO- 03- 884T

All of the one- stop centers in our recent study focused their efforts on
streamlining services for job seekers by ensuring that job seekers could
readily access needed services, educating program staff about all of the
one- stop services available to job seekers, or consolidating case
management and intake procedures. To ensure that job seekers could readily
access needed services, one- stops we visited allocated staff to help them
navigate the one- stop system, provided support to customers with
transportation barriers, and expanded services for one- stop customers.
For example, managers in Erie, Pennsylvania, positioned a staff person at
the entrance to the one- stop to help job seekers entering the center find

needed services and to assist exiting job seekers if they did not receive
the services they sought. In addition to improving access to one- stop
center services on- site, some of the one- stops we visited found ways to
serve job seekers who may have been unable to come into the one- stop
center due to transportation barriers or other issues. For example, in
Boston, Massachusetts, the one- stop placed staff in off- site locations,
including family courts, correctional facilities, and welfare offices, to
give job seekers ready access to employment and program information.
Finally, one- stops also improved job seeker access to services by
expanding

partnerships to include optional service providers* those beyond the
program partners mandated by WIA. These optional partners ranged from
federally funded programs, such as TANF, to community- based organizations
providing services tailored to meet the needs of local job seekers. The
one- stop in Dayton, Ohio, was particularly proactive in forming optional
partnerships to meet job seekers* service needs. At the time of our visit,
the Dayton one- stop had over 30 optional partners onsite.

To educate program staff about one- stop services, centers used
crosstraining sessions in order to inform staff about the range of
services available at the one- stop. Cross- training activities ranged
from conducting monthly educational workshops to a shadow program to help
staff

become familiar with other programs* rules and operations. Officials in
Salt Lake City, Utah, reported that cross* training improved staff
understanding of programs outside their area of expertise and enhanced
their ability to make referrals. The Pikeville, Kentucky, one- stop
supported cross- training workshops in which one- stop staff from
different partner programs educated each other about the range of services
they could provide. After learning about the other programs, Pikeville
staff collaboratively designed a service delivery flow chart that
effectively routed job seekers to the appropriate service providers,
providing a clear entry point and a clear path from one program to
another. In addition, the Vocational Rehabilitation staff at the Pikeville
one- stop told us that cross Selected One- Stops Used

Strategies to Streamline Services for Job Seekers

Page 10 GAO- 03- 884T

training other program staff about the needs of special populations
enabled them to more accurately identify hidden disabilities and to better
refer disabled customers to the appropriate services.

Centers also sought to reduce the duplication of effort across programs
and the burden on job seekers navigating multiple programs by
consolidating case management and intake procedures across programs
through the use of shared service plans for customers and shared computer
networks. Ten of the 14 one- stops we visited consolidated their intake
processes or case management systems. This consolidation took many forms,
including having case workers from different programs work as a team
developing service plans for customers to having a shared computer network
across programs. For example, in Blaine, Minnesota, caseworkers from the
various one- stop programs met regularly to collaborate in developing and
implementing joint service plans for customers who were co- enrolled in
multiple programs. To efficiently coordinate multiple services for one-
stop customers in Erie, Pennsylvania, one- stop staff used a networked
computer system with a shared case management program, so that all
relevant one- stop program staff could share access to a customer*s
service plan and case file. In Kansas City, Missouri, the Youth
Opportunity Program and the WIA Youth Program staff shared intake and used
a combined enrollment form to alleviate the burden of multiple intake and
assessment forms when registering participants.

All of the one- stops we visited engaged and served employers by
dedicating specialized staff to establish relationships with employers or
industries, by working with employers through intermediaries, or by
providing specially tailored services to meet employers* specific
workforce needs. One- stop officials told us that engaging employers was
critical to successfully connecting job seekers with available jobs. In
order to encourage employers* participation in the one- stop system,
specialized staff outreached to individual employers and served as
employers* primary point of contact for accessing one- stop services. For
example, the one- stop in Killeen, Texas, dedicated specialized staff to
serve not only as the central point of contact for receiving calls and
requests from employers but also to identify job openings available
through employers in the community. In addition to working with individual
employers, staff at some of the one- stops we visited also worked with
industry clusters, or groups of related employers, to more efficiently
meet local labor demands* particularly for industries with labor
shortages. For instance, the one- stop in Aurora, Colorado, dedicated
staff to work with specific Selected One- Stops

Developed Strategies to Engage and Provide Services to Employers

Page 11 GAO- 03- 884T

industries, particularly the healthcare industry. In response to a
shortage of 1,600 nurses in the Denver metro area, the Aurora one- stop
assisted in the creation of a healthcare recruitment center designed to
provide job seekers with job placement assistance and healthcare- related
training.

In addition to dedicating specialized staff, all of the one- stops we
visited worked with intermediaries to engage and serve employers.
Intermediaries, such as a local Chamber of Commerce or an economic
development entity, served as liaisons between employers and the onestop
system, helping one- stops to assess the workforce needs of employers
while connecting employers with one- stop services. For example, the one-
stop staff in Clarksville, Tennessee, worked with Chamber of Commerce
members to help banks in the community that were having difficulty finding
entry- level employees with the necessary math skills. To help connect job
seekers with available job openings at local banks, the one- stop
developed a training opportunity for job seekers that was funded by
Chamber members and was targeted to the specific skills needed for
employment in the banking community. Specialized staff at many of the one-
stops we visited also worked with local economic development entities to
recruit new businesses to the area. For example, the staff at the Erie,
Pennsylvania, one- stop worked with a range of local economic development
organizations to establish an employer outreach

program that developed incentive packages to attract new businesses to the
community.

Finally, all of the one- stops we visited tailored their services to meet
employers* specific workforce needs by offering an array of job placement
and training assistance designed for each employer. These services

included specialized recruiting, pre- screening, and customized training
programs. For example, when one of the nation*s largest cabinet
manufacturers was considering opening a new facility in the eastern
Kentucky area, the one- stop in Pikeville, Kentucky, offered a tailored
set of services to attract the employer to the area. The services included
assisting the company with pre- screening and interviewing applicants and
establishing an on- the- job training package that could use WIA funding
to offset up to 50 percent of each new hire*s wages during the 90- day
training period. The Pikeville one- stop had responsibility for
administering the

application and assessment process for job applicants, including holding a
3- day job fair that resulted in the company hiring 105 people through the
one- stop and a commitment to hire 350 more in the upcoming year.

According to a company representative, the incentive package offered by
the one- stop was the primary reason the company chose to build a new
facility in eastern Kentucky instead of another location.

Page 12 GAO- 03- 884T

To build the solid infrastructure needed to support better services for
job seekers and employers, many of the one- stops we visited developed and
strengthened program partnerships and raised funds beyond those provided
under WIA. Operators at 9 of the 14 one- stops we visited fostered the
development of strong program partnerships by encouraging communication
and collaboration among partners through functional teams and joint
projects. Collaboration through teams and joint projects allowed partners
to better integrate their respective programs and services, as well as
pursue common one- stop goals and share in one- stop decision- making. For
example, partners at the Erie, Pennsylvania, onestop center were organized
into four functional teams* a career resource center team, a job seeker
services team, an employer services team, and

an operations team* which together operated the one- stop center. As a
result of the functional team meetings, partners reported that they worked
together to solve problems and develop innovative strategies to improve
services in their respective functional area.

One- stop managers at several of the sites in our study told us that the
colocation of partner programs in one building facilitated the development
of strong partnerships. For this reason, one- stop managers at several of
the

centers reported that they fostered co- location by offering attractive
physical space and flexible rental agreements. For example, in Pikeville,
Kentucky, the local community college donated free space to the one- stop
on its conveniently located campus, making it easier to convince partners
to relocate there. Partners were also eager to relocate to the Pikeville
onestop

because they recognized the benefits of co- location for their customers.
For instance, staff from the Vocational Rehabilitation Program said that
co- location at the one- stop increased their customers* access to
employers and employment- related services. Several one- stops that did
not co- locate found ways to create strong linkages with off- site
partners. For example, in addition to regular meetings between on- site
and off- site staff, the one- stop in Aurora, Colorado, had a staff person
designated to act as a liaison and facilitate communication between on-
site and off- site partners. Nationwide, co- location of partner services
has been increasing since WIA was enacted. For example, in 2000, 21 states
reported that Education*s Vocational Rehabilitation Program was co-
located at the majority of their one- stops; this number increased to 35
states by 2001. Similarly, TANF work services were co- located in at least
some one- stops in 32 states in 2000, increasing to 39 states by 2001.

Managers at all but 2 of the 14 one- stops we visited said that they were
finding ways to creatively increase one- stop funds through fee- based
services, grants, or contributions from partner programs and state or
local One- Stop Centers Built a

Solid Infrastructure by Strengthening Program Partnerships and Raising
Additional Funds

Page 13 GAO- 03- 884T

governments. Managers said these additional funds allowed them to cover
operational costs and expand services despite limited WIA funding to
support one- stop infrastructure and restrictions on the use of program
funds. For example, one- stop operators in Clarksville, Tennessee,
reported that they raised $750,000 in fiscal year 2002 through a
combination of feebased business consulting, drug testing, and drivers*
education services. Using this money, the center was able to purchase a
new voicemail and computer network system, which facilitated communication
among staff and streamlined center operations. 7 Centers have also been
proactive about applying for grants from public and private sources. For
example,

the one- stop center in Kansas City, Missouri, had a full- time staff
person dedicated to researching and applying for grants. The one- stop
generated two- thirds of its entire program year 2002 operating budget of
$21 million through competitive grants available from the federal
government as well as from private foundations. This money allowed the
center to expand its services, such as through an internship program in
high- tech industries for at- risk youth. One- stop centers also raised
additional funds by soliciting contributions from local or state
government and from partner agencies. For instance, the Dayton, Ohio, one-
stop received $1 million annually from the county to pay for shared one-
stop staff salaries and to provide services

to job seekers who do not qualify for services under any other funding
stream. Dayton one- stop partners also contributed financial and in- kind
resources to the center on an as- needed basis.

Despite the successes state and local officials are having as they
implement WIA, some key aspects of the law, as well as Labor*s lack of
clear guidance in some areas, have stymied their efforts. First, the
performance measurement system is flawed* the need to meet certain
performance measures may be causing one- stops to deny services to some

clients who may be most in need of them; there is no measure that assesses
overall one- stop performance; and the data used to measure outcomes are
outdated by the time they are available and are, therefore, not useful in
day- to- day program management. Second, funding issues continue to plague
the system. The funding formulas used to allocate funds to states and
local areas do not reflect current program design and has caused wide
fluctuations in funding levels from year to year. In

7 While several centers had enthusiastically adopted fee- based services
as a method of raising funds, it is important to note that managers of at
least one center said they chose not to charge for services because they
believed this might deter some employers or job seekers from accessing the
services they need. Despite Successes,

Some Aspects of WIA Have Stymied Officials* Efforts to Implement WIA as
Intended

Page 14 GAO- 03- 884T

addition, WIA provided no separate funding source to support one- stop
infrastructure and developing equitable cost sharing agreements has not
always been successful, largely because of the limitations in the way
funds for some of the mandatory programs can be spent. Third, the current
provision for certifying training providers as eligible is considered
overly burdensome by many providers and may reduce training options for
job seekers as providers have withdrawn from the WIA system. Finally,
state officials have told us that they need more help from Labor in the
form of clearer guidance and instructions and greater opportunities to
share promising practices in managing and providing services through their
onestop centers.

The performance measurement system developed under WIA may be causing some
clients to be denied services and does not allow for an accurate
understanding of WIA*s effectiveness. First, the need to meet performance
levels may be the driving factor in deciding who receives WIA- funded
services at the local level. Officials in all five states we visited for
one study told us that local areas are not registering many WIA
participants, largely because local staff are reluctant to provide
WIAfunded services to job seekers who may be less likely to find
employment or experience earnings increases when they are placed in a job.
8 For example, one state official described how local areas were carefully
screening potential participants and holding meetings to decide whether to
register them. As a result, individuals who are eligible for and may
benefit from WIA- funded services may not be receiving services that are
tracked

under WIA. We found similar results in our studies of older workers and
incumbent workers. 9 Performance levels for the measures that track
earnings change for adults and earnings replacement for dislocated workers
may be especially problematic. Several state officials reported that local
staff were reluctant to register already employed adults or dislocated
workers. State and local 8 See, Workforce Investment Act: Improvements
Needed in Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA*s
Effectiveness, GAO- 02- 275 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 1, 2002). 9 See, for
example, Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business
Needs, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some
Workers,

GAO- 03- 353 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 14, 2003); Older Workers: Employment
Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Job and Job Search, but Revised
Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other Services, GAO- 03- 350
(Washington, D. C.: Jan. 24, 2003). WIA*s Performance

Measurement System May Be Causing Some Clients to Be Denied Services and
Does Not Provide an Accurate Picture of WIA*s Effectiveness

Page 15 GAO- 03- 884T

officials explained that it would be hard to increase the earnings of
adults who are already employed or replace the wages of dislocated
workers, who are often laid off from high- paying, low- skilled jobs or
from jobs that required skills that are now obsolete. In addition, for
dislocated workers, employers may provide severance pay or workers might
work overtime prior to a plant closure, increasing these workers* earnings
before they are

dislocated. Many dislocated workers who come to the one- stop center,
therefore, have earned high wages just prior to being dislocated, making
it hard to replace *let alone increase *their earnings. If high wages are

earned before dislocation and lower wages are earned after job placement
through WIA, the wage change will be negative, depressing the wage
replacement level. As a result, a local area may not meet its performance
level for this measure, discouraging service to those who may need it.

Second, outcomes are measured largely using unemployment insurance (UI)
wage data, but these data suffer from time delays of up to as much as 14
months, making the data outdated by the time they are available. For

example, we asked states in a survey we conducted in 2001, how quickly job
placement outcome data would be available to them from UI wage records. We
found that for 30 states, the earliest time period that job placement data
would be available was 6 months after an individual entered employment,
with 15 states reporting that it may take 9 months or longer. Similarly,
over half of states reported that obtaining the necessary information on
employment retention could take a year or longer. In fact, current
available data on the wage- related measures reflects performance

from the previous program year. While UI wage records are the best data
source currently available for documenting employment, the lack of timely
data makes it difficult for state and local officials to use the
performance measures for short- term program management, including
improving onestop services. Some states and localities have developed
other means, sometimes adding additional performance measures, to fill
this information gap.

Finally, there are no measures to gauge the performance of the one- stop
system as a whole. At least 17 programs provide services through the
onestop system and most have their own performance measures. Although
these performance measures may be used for assessing outcomes for
individual programs, they cannot be used to measure the success of the
overall system. For example, no program has a measure to track job seekers
who use only self- service or informational activities offered through the
one- stop, which may constitute a large proportion of job seekers. Not
knowing how many job seekers use the one- stop*s services limits the one-
stop*s ability to assess its impact. Furthermore, state and

Page 16 GAO- 03- 884T

local officials told us that having multiple performance measures has
impeded coordination among programs. There has been limited progress in
developing overall performance measures for the one- stop system. Labor
convened a working group in September 2001 to develop indicators of the
one- stop system*s performance, but they have not yet issued them.

As states and localities have implemented WIA, they have been hampered by
funding issues, including flawed funding formulas and the lack of a
funding source dedicated specifically to the one- stop infrastructure. We
identified several issues associated with the current formulas. Formula
factors used to allocate funds are not aligned with the target populations
for these programs, there are time lags in the data used to determine
these allocations, and there is excessive funding volatility associated
with the Dislocated Worker Program that is unrelated to fluctuations in
the target populations. As a result, states* funding levels may not always
be

consistent with their actual need for services. In addition, no funding
source exists with which to fund the one- stop infrastructure, and the
volatile funding levels that states have experienced in the past 3 years
have limited their ability to plan and develop their one- stop systems
under WIA.

Some of the factors used in the formulas to allocate funds are not clearly
aligned with the programs* target populations. 10 For example, the Youth
program targets a specific group of low- income youth with certain
barriers to employment. However, two- thirds of its funds are distributed
based on two factors that measure general unemployment rather than youth
unemployment. The remaining third is distributed according to the number
of low- income youth in states, but even this factor does not measure low-
income youth who face barriers to employment. The target population and
formula for the WIA Adult program also are misaligned.

Basic services provided through the Adult program are open to all adults
regardless of income, while low- income adults and public assistance
recipients have priority for training and other more intensive services.
However, the WIA Adult allocation formula is more narrowly focused on
states* relative shares of excess unemployment, unemployment in Areas of
Substantial Unemployment (ASUs), and low- income adults. Finally, the
Dislocated Worker Program is targeted to several specific categories of
individuals, including those eligible for unemployment insurance and 10
The formulas for distributing these funds to the states were left largely
unchanged from

those used to distribute funds under JTPA. Funding the System

Envisioned under WIA Is Hampered by Flawed Funding Formulas and the Lack
of a Specific Funding Source for the One- Stop Infrastructure

Formulas Used to Allocate Funds Have Limitations

Page 17 GAO- 03- 884T

workers affected by mass layoffs. The factors used to distribute
Dislocated Worker funds are not, however, specifically related to these
populations. Two- thirds of program funds are distributed according to
factors that measure general unemployment. One- third is distributed
according to the number of long- term unemployed, a group that is no
longer automatically eligible for the program.

In addition to formula misalignment, allocations may not reflect current
labor market conditions because there are time lags between when the data
are collected and when the allocations are available to states. The oldest
data are those used in the Youth and Adult program formulas to measure the
relative numbers of low- income individuals in the states. The decennial
Census is the source for these data, and allocations under this factor
through 2002 are based on data from the 1990 Census. The data used to
measure two of three factors for both the Youth and Adult programs are
more recent, but are still as much as 12 months out of date. The time lags
for the data used to calculate Dislocated Worker allocations range from 9
months to 18 months.

Finally, funding for the Dislocated Worker Program suffers from excessive
and unwarranted volatility* significantly more volatile, as much as 3
times more so, than funding for either the Youth or Adult program. Some
states have reported that this volatility makes program planning
difficult. While some degree of change in funding is to be expected due to
changing dislocations in the workforce, changes in funding do not
necessarily correspond to these changes. For example, changes in the
numbers of workers affected by mass layoffs from year to year* one measure
of dislocation activity* ran counter to changes in Dislocated Worker
allocations in several states we examined. In New York, for example,
dislocations due to mass layoffs increased by 138 percent in 2001, but
funding allocations that year decreased by 26 percent. Conversely, in
1999, New York*s dislocations decreased by 34 percent, while funding

allocations actually increased by 24 percent. Several aspects of the
Dislocated Worker formula contribute to funding volatility and to the
seeming lack of consistency between dislocation and funding. The excess
unemployment factor has a *threshold* effect* states may or may not
qualify for the one- third of funds allocated under this factor in a given
year, based on whether or not they meet the threshold condition of having
at least 4.5 percent unemployment statewide. As a result, small changes in
unemployment can cause large changes in funding, and when the economy is
strong and few states have unemployment over 4. 5 percent, the states that
do qualify for this pot of

Page 18 GAO- 03- 884T

funds may experience large funding increases even if their unemployment
falls. In addition, the Dislocated Worker formula is not subject to the
additional statutory provisions that mitigate volatility in Youth and
Adult program funding. These provisions include *hold harmless* and *stop

gain* constraints that limit changes in funding to within 90 and 130
percent of each state*s prior year allocation and also *small state
minimums* that ensure that each state receives at least 0.25 percent of
the total national allocation. While these provisions prevent dramatic
shifts in funding from

year to year, they also result in allocations that may not as closely
track changes in the program target populations.

Developing alternative funding formulas to address the issues we have
identified is an important but challenging task. This task is complicated
by the need to strike an appropriate balance among various objectives,
such as using formula factors that are best aligned with program target
populations and reducing time lags in data sources, while also using
available data sources to measure these factors as accurately as possible.
In addition, there have been proposals for reauthorizing WIA that would
substantially modify the program target populations and funding streams,
which in turn would have consequences for revising the funding formulas.

Many of WIA*s mandatory partners have identified resource constraints as a
major factor in their ability to participate in the one- stops. In fact,
the participants in a GAO- sponsored symposium 11 identified insufficient
funding levels as one of the top three WIA implementation problems. Labor
also found that in many states, the agencies that administer the
Employment Service program had not yet been able to co- locate within the
one- stops. We were told by Employment Service officials and one- stop
administrators we spoke with that this was often because they still had
leases on existing facilities and could not afford to incur the costs of
breaking those leases. Limited funding made it even more difficult to
assign additional personnel to the one- stop or to devote resources to
developing electronic linkages with the one- stop. In the states we
visited, mandatory partners told us that limited funding was a primary
reason that, even when they co- located staff at the one- stop, they did
so on a limited basis. As a result, mandatory partners had to employ a
wide range of methods to provide the required support for the operation of
the one

11 The symposium included officials from the key associations representing
state and local implementers, such as the National Association of
Workforce Boards and the American Association of Community Colleges.
Funding One- Stop

Infrastructure Has Been Challenging

Page 19 GAO- 03- 884T

stops. Across all the sites we visited for an early implementation study,
WIA*s Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and, across most sites,
Employment Service, were the only partners consistently making monetary
contributions to pay for the one- stops* operational costs. Other
mandatory partners tended to make in- kind contributions* for example,
Perkins and Adult Education and Literacy partners provided computer or GED
training.

Mandatory partners also noted that restrictions on the use of their funds
can serve as another constraint affecting their ability to contribute
resources to the one- stops. Some programs have caps on administrative
spending that affect their ability to contribute to the support of the
onestop*s operations. For example, WIA*s Adult and Dislocated Worker
programs have a 10- percent administrative cap that supports both the
onestops* operation and board staff at the local level. In addition, as we
have reported in the past, regulations often prohibit states from using
federal program funds for acquisition of real property or for
construction. 12 This

means partners, such as those carrying out Perkins, cannot provide funds
to buy or refurbish a one- stop building. Moreover, Adult Education and
Literacy and Perkins officials noted that under WIA they can only use
federal funds for the purpose of supporting the one- stop, though only a
small portion of their funds come from federal sources.

Training options for job seekers may be diminishing rather than improving,
as training providers reduce the number of course offerings they make
available to WIA job seekers. 13 According to training providers, the data
collection burden resulting from participation in WIA can be significant
and may discourage them from participating. For example, the requirement
that training providers collect outcome data on all students in a class
may mean calling hundreds of students to obtain placement and wage
information, even if there is only one WIA- funded student in that

12 See Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address
Concerns Over New Requirements, GAO- 02- 72, (Washington, D. C.: Oct. 4,
2001). 13 The most recently available data on the proportion of WIA job
seekers who receive training shows an overall decline from JTPA figures.
During program year 2001, 43 percent of participants who exited the adult
and dislocated worker programs had received training under WIA. By
comparison, during program year 1998, 73 percent of JTPA exiters

(including adults, dislocated workers, and older workers) had received
training. This decline may result from a variety of factors, one of which
may be fewer training opportunities. WIA*s System for Certifying

Training Providers May Reduce Training Options for Job Seekers

Page 20 GAO- 03- 884T

class. Even if they used other methods that may be less resource-
intensive, training providers said privacy restrictions might limit their
ability to collect or report student outcome data. Training providers also
highlighted the burden associated with the lack of consistency between the
states use for WIA and for other mandatory partners. For example, the
definition a state establishes for *program completer* for students
enrolled in WIA can be different from the definition a state establishes
for students enrolled in Education*s Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education
Program (Perkins). Training providers find the reporting requirements
particularly burdensome given the relatively small number of individuals
who have been sent for training. Guidance from Labor and Education has
failed to address how training providers can provide this information
costeffectively.

In addition to challenges arising from implementing portions of the law,
state and local officials often cite the need for more help from Labor in
terms of clearer guidance and definitions and greater opportunities for
information sharing. Although Labor has provided broad guidance and
technical assistance to aid the transition from JTPA to WIA, some
workforce officials have told us that the guidance has not addressed

specific implementation concerns. Efforts to design flexible programs that
meet local needs could be enhanced if Labor addressed the concerns of
workforce officials with specific guidance and disseminated information on
best practices in a timely manner. A number of our studies have
recommended that Labor be more proactive and provide better guidance and
clearer definitions

 on participant registration policies and on performance measure
definitions to allow for accurate outcome tracking and better program
accountability 14  on how to better administer the WIA dislocated worker
program,

including how to provide additional assistance to local areas using rapid
response funds 15 14 See Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in
Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA*s
Effectiveness, GAO- 02- 275 (Washington, D. C.:

Feb. 1, 2002). 15 See Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and
Revised Funding Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program, GAO- 02-
274 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 11, 2002). States and Localities Seek

More Help from Labor

Page 21 GAO- 03- 884T

 on how to more effectively administer the WIA youth program, including
how to recruit and engage parents, youth, and the business community;
improve competition in contracts for services to youth; determine
eligibility; and retain out- of- school youth 16  on a definition of
unliquidated obligations so that it includes funds

committed at the point of service delivery, specifies what constitutes an
obligation and the timeframe for recording an obligation in order to
improve financial reporting. 17 Labor has taken limited steps to respond
to these recommendations. It has released revised guidance on the
performance measurement system and

has allowed states to revise their negotiated performance levels, which
may address possible disincentives to serving certain job seekers. Labor
is also currently finalizing guidance for state and local areas on
services for dislocated workers. In response to our recommendations
pertaining to the WIA Youth Program, Labor agreed to issue a toolkit on
effective youth councils; reach out to new providers to enhance
competition; simplify

eligibility documentation; and develop a best practices Web site on
serving out- of- school youth. In addition, Labor agreed with our findings
and recommendations related to providing clearer definitions of
unliquidated obligations; however, it declined to consider obligations in
assessing WIA*s

financial position. Finally, Labor has convened a one- stop readiness
workgroup that included representatives from Education, HHS, and HUD. This
group has developed a set of suggested strategies for addressing major WIA
implementation issues and plans to disseminate a national issuance, signed
by the heads of all the federal partner agencies, that would emphasize the
commitment of these federal partners to the onestop system. We have also
recommended that Labor be more proactive in sharing

various promising practices to help states and localities still struggling
with implementation challenges. Our reports have recommended that Labor
share promising practices in areas that include cost- effective 16 See
Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service Strategies,
but

Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development, GAO- 02- 413
(Washington, D. C.: Apr. 5, 2002).

17 See Workforce Investment Act: States* Spending Is on Track, but Better
Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting, GAO- 03- 239 (Washington, D.
C.: Nov. 22, 2002).

Page 22 GAO- 03- 884T

methods of collecting training provider information, addressing the
difficulties of using UI data in measuring outcomes, better ways to
coordinate services for TANF clients through the one- stop, and better
spending management strategies.

While Labor has developed several mechanisms for providing guidance and
allowing local one- stop administrators to share best practice
information, these efforts have been limited. Labor is establishing a new
unit within ETA* the Office of Performance and Results* whose function
will be to coordinate efforts to identify and share promising approaches
in areas such as the use of supplemental data sources to close gaps in UI
data. In addition, Labor*s primary mechanisms for distributing information
about promising practices at one- stop centers are a Web site, forums, and
conferences. The promising practices Web site, in particular, represents a
good step toward building a mechanism to support information sharing among
one- stop administrators. However, neither Labor nor the Web site*s
administrators have conducted a customer satisfaction survey or user

evaluation of the site, so little is known about how well the site
currently meets its objective to promote information sharing about
promising practices at one- stop centers. In addition to the Web site,
Labor cosponsors several national conferences to promote information
sharing and networking opportunities for state and local grantees and
stakeholders. Labor also hosted several forums during WIA implementation
to allow information exchanges to occur between the department and state
and local one- stop administrators. While these conferences and forums
provide a venue for one- stop managers to talk with one another about what
is and is not working at their centers, participation is limited to those
who can physically take part. WIA represents a fundamental shift in the
way federally funded

employment and training services are delivered to job seekers and
employers. It was, perhaps, a far more radical change than it initially
appeared. But, in just under 3 years, states and localities have learned
to embrace its flexibility, developing systems that meet local needs. They
are doing what WIA envisioned* bringing on new partnerships and forging
new relationships at all levels. They are actively working to engage the
employer community and involve intermediaries and others to address the
economic development needs of local communities. The process of
implementation has not been perfect, but it is moving forward. Some
aspects of the law that have caused difficulties may deserve attention
during reauthorization. But, given the significant changes brought about
by Concluding Observations

Page 23 GAO- 03- 884T

WIA, more time may be needed to allow a better assessment of what is
working and what is not before making major changes in WIA*s structure.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.

For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact Sigurd R.
Nilsen at (202) 512- 7215. Individuals making key contributions to this
testimony included Dianne Blank, Elisabeth Anderson, Katrina Ryan, and
Tamara Harris. GAO Contact and

Acknowledgments

Page 24 GAO- 03- 884T

Workforce Investment Act: One- Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information
Sharing is Needed. GAO- 03- 725. Washington, D. C.: June 18, 2003.

Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for Youth,
Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO- 03- 636. Washington, D. C.: April 25,
2003.

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and Performance
Measures for Major Programs. GAO- 03- 589. Washington, D. C.: April 18,
2003.

Food Stamp Employment and Training Program: Better Data Needed to
Understand Who Is Served and What the Program Achieves. GAO- 03- 388.
Washington, D. C.: March 12, 2003.

Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs, but
Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers. GAO-
03- 353. Washington, D. C.: February 14, 2003.

Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other
Services. GAO- 03- 350. Washington, D. C.: January 24, 2003.

Workforce Investment Act: States* Spending Is on Track, but Better
Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting. GAO- 03- 239. Washington, D.
C.: November 22, 2002. Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities
Increasingly Coordinate

Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective
Approaches. GAO- 02- 696. Washington, D. C.: July 3, 2002.

Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service Strategies,
but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development. GAO- 02- 413.
Washington, D. C.: April 5, 2002.

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula
Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO- 02- 274. Washington, D. C.:
February 11, 2002. Related GAO Products

Page 25 GAO- 03- 884T

Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to
Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA*s Effectiveness.

GAO- 02- 275. Washington, D. C.: February 1, 2002.

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns Over
New Requirements. GAO- 02- 72. Washington, D. C.: Oct. 4, 2001.

Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of
TANF Services. GAO/ T- HEHS- 00- 145. Washington, D. C.: June 29, 2000.

(130280)

This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select
*Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products* under the
GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to: U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D. C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000

TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202) 512- 6061

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800

U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
C. 20548 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***