National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to	 
Improve Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to	 
Expedite Grant Awards and Improve Data (16-APR-04, GAO-04-496).  
                                                                 
The Department of Labor (Labor) awards national emergency grants 
to states and local areas to provide assistance to workers who	 
lose their jobs because of major economic dislocations or	 
disasters. Most grants awarded are regular grants to assist	 
workers affected by plant closings or mass layoffs. Questions	 
have been raised about whether grant funds are getting to states 
and local areas quickly enough. GAO was asked to assess the	 
effectiveness of the process for awarding national emergency	 
grants, whether Labor is planning changes that will improve the  
grant award process, and what is known about how grant funds are 
used.								 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-496 					        
    ACCNO:   A09807						        
  TITLE:     National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes  
to Improve Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to	 
Expedite Grant Awards and Improve Data				 
     DATE:   04/16/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Grant administration				 
	     Grants to states					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Management information systems			 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Data integrity					 
	     Reductions in force				 
	     Grants to local governments			 
	     Timeliness 					 
	     Workforce Investment Act Standardized		 
	     Record Data					 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** 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-04-496

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

                       Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2004

NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANTS

 Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve Award Process, but Further Actions Are
               Required to Expedite Grant Awards and Improve Data

May 13, 2004 - Report reprinted to correct information in figure 7. May
27, 2004 - Report reprinted to correct body of report.

GAO-04-496

Highlights of GAO-04-496, a report to congressional requesters

The Department of Labor (Labor) awards national emergency grants to states
and local areas to provide assistance to workers who lose their jobs
because of major economic dislocations or disasters. Most grants awarded
are regular grants to assist workers affected by plant closings or mass
layoffs. Questions have been raised about whether grant funds are getting
to states and local areas quickly enough. GAO was asked to assess the
effectiveness of the process for awarding national emergency grants,
whether Labor is planning changes that will improve the grant award
process, and what is known about how grant funds are used.

We are recommending that Labor set goals for awarding grants and
incremental payments that include the entire award process, and track how
long it takes for all steps of the process. Finally, Labor should clarify
guidance to states on submitting national emergency grant data in progress
reports and ensure that grantees submit data to the national participant
database.

In its comments, Labor disagreed with our conclusions and methodology. We
conducted a complete review of Labor's grant award process for a 3-year
period, surveyed states, and assessed current and proposed policies to
reach our conclusions. While Labor is making changes to the grant award
process, we identified additional actions needed.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-496.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at (202)
512-7215 or [email protected].

April 2004

NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANTS

Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve Award Process, but Further Actions Are
Required to Expedite Grant Awards and Improve Data

Labor does not award most national emergency grants in a timely manner,
and as a result, services to workers have been delayed, interrupted, or
denied. Labor's goal is to make award decisions within 30 calendar days of
receiving a complete application. However, nearly 90 percent of regular
grants took longer than 30 days to award (see figure). On average, Labor
took 92 days to award regular grants. For grants disbursed in more than
one payment, Labor took on average 83 days to award the additional
increments. Twenty-five of 38 states responding to our survey reported
that because of grant award delays, local areas had to delay or deny
services to workers.

Labor is taking some steps, such as implementing an electronic system to
better manage its award process and incorporating its 30-day goal in new
guidelines, that may improve the timeliness of grant awards. However, some
weaknesses still remain in Labor's planned changes that could prevent
Labor from accurately assessing how long it takes to make grant awards and
incremental payments. For example, Labor plans to stop counting the days
elapsed if it finds problems with an application, and Labor's proposed
guidelines do not establish a timeliness goal for incremental payments.

Little is known on a national level about how national emergency grant
funds are used because of weaknesses in two primary data sources. Because
of the lack of clear guidance, states report inconsistent data in progress
reports, and some states have not reported data on national emergency
grants to a national database covering Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
programs. To address these problems, Labor is implementing a standardized
electronic form for grantees to submit progress reports, issued guidance
requiring states to submit data on national emergency grant participants
to the national WIA database, and checked states' latest submissions to
identify if data were missing. However, Labor's guidance still is not
sufficiently clear to ensure that states will report data in progress
reports consistently, and Labor does not have specific plans to continue
checking states' data submissions to ensure that data are complete.

Percentage of Regular Grants Awarded during Program Years 2000-2002 within
Specified
Time Frames
Percentage of regular grants

50 46

40

30

20

10

0 30 days 31-60 61-90 91 days or fewer days days or longer Number of days
from receiving application to award

Source: GAO analysis of Labor grant awards during program years 2000
through 2002.

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
Delays in Grant Awards Hampered Services to Dislocated Workers
Labor Has Taken Steps to Improve the Grant Award Process, but

Additional Actions are Needed Little Is Known about How Grant Funds Are
Used because of

Weaknesses in Data Collection Conclusions Recommendations for Executive
Action Agency Comments 1

                                                                       2 5 12

20

23 28 28 29

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Appendix II	Summary of Funds Awarded for Regular, Disaster, |and Dual
Enrollment Grants for Program Years 2000- 2002

Appendix III	Average Number of Days Regular Grants Were Awarded, by State

  Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Labor

          Appendix V          GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments       43 
                                           GAO Contacts                    43 
                                      Staff Acknowledgments                43 
     Related GAO Products                                                  44 

  Tables

Table 1: Average Time to Award Grants by Quarter in Which Application Was
Received during Program Years 2000-2002 15

Table 2: Information Contained in Progress Reports from 13 States 24 Table
3: Comparison of State's PY2001 WIASRD National

Emergency Grant Participant Records with Grants

Received in PY2000 26 Table 4: Number of National Emergency Grants Awarded
and Used

in GAO Analysis 32

  Figures

Figure 1: Funding Reserved from the Dislocated Worker Allotment for the
Secretary of Labor 7

Figure 2: Distribution of National Emergency Grant Funds for Regular,
Disaster, and Dual Enrollment Grants from July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2003 9

Figure 3: Percentage of Grants Awarded and Funds Awarded for Program Years
2000-2002, by Type of Grant 10 Figure 4: Difference between How GAO and
Labor Track the Grant Award Process 13 Figure 5: Percentage of Regular
Grants Awarded during Program Years 2000-2002 within Specified Time Frames
14 Figure 6: Percentage of Regular Grant Applications and Awards by
Quarter during Program Years 2000-2002 16 Figure 7: Percentage of Regular
Grant Applications and Awards by Month during Program Years 2000-2002 17
Figure 8: Percentage of Regular Grant Incremental Payments Awarded within
Specified Time Frames 18

Figure 9: Average Number of Days to Award Regular Grants to States with at
Least Five Grants during Program Years 2000-2002 19

Figure 10: New Process for Awarding National Emergency Grants and Number
of Days Allowed in Each Step 22

Figure 11: 39 States Surveyed That Were Awarded a Regular National
Emergency Grant during Program Years 2000 through 2002 33

Abbreviations

JTPA Job Training Partnership Act
OIG Department of Labor Office of Inspector General
WIA Workforce Investment Act
WIASRD Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data

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.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

April 16, 2004

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions United States Senate

                           The Honorable Patty Murray

                            Ranking Minority Member

                Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions United States Senate

Between 2000 and 2002, almost 60,000 mass layoffs of 50 or more workers
occurred, resulting in nearly 7 million workers losing their jobs. The
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 authorizes the Department of Labor
(Labor) to award national emergency grants to states and local areas to
provide employment and training assistance to workers whose jobs were lost
because of major economic dislocations, such as plant closures, or major
disasters, such as floods and hurricanes. Grantees, typically the state or
local agency responsible for administering WIA, apply for national
emergency grants when their dislocated worker formula funds are
insufficient to assist the affected workers. Between July 1, 2000, and
June 30, 2003, Labor awarded about $600 million in national emergency
grants. The majority of these funds were used for grants to provide
assistance, called regular grants, to workers who lost their jobs because
of layoffs or plant closures. National emergency grants can be funded in
whole or in increments. For grants that are funded incrementally, grantees
are required to submit supplemental information to request additional
payments. Although national emergency grants are intended to be a timely
response to unexpected events, questions arose during congressional
hearings in April 2003 about whether national emergency grant funds were
getting to states and local areas quickly enough to help workers when they
needed them the most.

In November 2003, we reported that services to dislocated workers were
being affected because of delays in Labor's awarding of national emergency
grants.1 We also found that Labor was initiating actions to improve the
grant award process. Because of your continued interest in Labor's process
for awarding national emergency grants, you asked us to determine (1) the
effectiveness of the overall process for awarding national emergency grant
funds, (2) whether the changes being implemented by Labor will improve the
grant award process, and (3) what is known about how grant funds are being
used. To respond to these questions, we interviewed Labor officials at
both headquarters and regional offices, reviewed Labor files for all
grants awarded during program years 2000 through 2002, and surveyed
officials in the 39 states that had received at least one regular national
emergency grant during that period.2 We received responses from 38 states.
We also reviewed Labor's two data sources that contain information on use
of national emergency grants. We conducted our work from March 2003 to
March 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards (see app. I for a detailed discussion of our scope and
methodology).

Labor's grant process is not as effective as it could be because most
grants are not awarded in a timely manner, and as a result, services to
workers have been delayed, interrupted, or denied. Labor's goal is to make
award decisions about national emergency grants within 30 calendar days of
receiving a complete application. However, nearly 90 percent of the
regular grants took longer than 30 days to award. On average, Labor took
92 days, from the receipt of the application, to send award letters for
regular grants. The amount of time it took for grant awards was also tied
to the time of year: Labor awarded 60 percent of the regular grants during
the last 3 months of their program year, and most of these were made in
the final month. In addition, for regular grants disbursed in more than
one payment, it took an average of 83 days from the time additional funds
were requested to the time the incremental payment was made. Because of
the lag in grant awards, some problems arose in providing services.
Twenty-

  Results in Brief

1U.S. General Accounting Office, National Emergency Grants: Services to
Dislocated Workers Hampered by Delays in Grant Awards, but Labor Is
Initiating Actions to Improve Grant Award Process, GAO-04-222 (Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 14, 2003).

2A program year begins on July 1 of a year and ends on June 30 of the
following year. A program year is designated by the year in which it
begins. Thus, program year 2002 began on July 1, 2002, and ended on June
30, 2003.

five of the 38 states responding to our survey reported that local areas
had to deny or delay services to laid-off workers because of delays in
receiving funds. For example, delays in receiving funds caused a local
area in Nevada to cancel training for over 300 workers, and a local area
in Massachusetts to place workers on waiting lists for 3 to 4 months
before receiving training.

Labor is taking steps that may improve the timeliness with which grants
are awarded, but additional actions are needed to better manage the grant
award process. Labor plans to implement an electronic system by July 1,
2004, that will enable states to apply for grants online and will
automatically check applications for missing or inconsistent information.
The electronic system is also designed to help Labor manage its grant
award process by automatically assigning applications to staff for review
and tracking the date they complete their review. In addition, in guidance
issued in January 2004, Labor clarified its application requirements.
Finally, Labor plans to issue guidelines that document a goal of making
award decisions within 30 business days. However, some weaknesses still
remain in Labor's planned changes that could prevent Labor from accurately
assessing how long it takes to make grant awards and incremental payments.
In assessing its progress toward meeting its timeliness goal, Labor plans
to stop counting the days elapsed toward its 30-day goal if it finds
problems with an application. In addition, Labor's timeliness goal only
includes the days up to an award decision, leaving the agency unable to
determine if delays occur in steps of the process leading up to issuance
of the award letter. Furthermore, the proposed guidelines do not specify a
goal for how long Labor should take to make incremental payments.

Little is known on a national level about how national emergency grant
funds are used because of weaknesses in two primary data sources, and
although Labor is taking some steps to improve the data collected, these
steps may not go far enough to ensure the data's reliability. Largely
because of a lack of clear guidance, data in national emergency grant
progress reports that states are required to submit to Labor are
inconsistent, and data in a national participant database covering
Workforce Investment Act programs are incomplete and unverified. Labor has
not issued guidance under the Workforce Investment Act on submitting
national emergency grant progress reports, and as a result, not all states
reported the same data elements. For example, five states from which we
received sample reports included the number of participants enrolled in
intensive services, such as case management, while eight did not.
Regarding Labor's national participant database, the guidance has not

been clear about whether states are required to submit data on national
emergency grants, and Labor has not ensured the completeness and accuracy
of data that are submitted. To address these weaknesses, Labor is making
several improvements to the data sources. To improve the consistency of
progress reports, Labor is planning to implement by July 1, 2004, a
standardized electronic form on which states will be required to submit
their reports. However, Labor has not issued detailed guidance to ensure
that states will interpret data elements, such as the number of
participants who have entered employment, consistently. To improve the
national participant database, Labor is planning to implement a data
validation program to ensure the accuracy of state-reported data on
national emergency grant participants, has issued guidance to clarify the
requirement that national emergency grant data must be submitted, and
checked states' latest submissions to identify whether their data on
national emergency grants were complete. However, Labor does not currently
have specific plans to continue checking states' submissions to ensure
completeness of the data.

In order to better manage the national emergency grant award process, we
are recommending that Labor set goals for awarding grants, as well as for
providing incremental payments, that include the entire process from when
a grant application is received to the time that the grant award is
issued. In addition, we are recommending that Labor continuously track how
long it takes for all components of the grant award process. Finally, to
ensure that reported information on national emergency grants is reliable,
we are recommending that Labor clarify guidance to states on submitting
national emergency grant data in progress reports and ensure that grantees
submit data to the national participant database. In its comments, Labor
took issue with the report's methodology, said it believes that the report
makes assertions not supported by empirical evidence, and disagreed with
our conclusions. Labor also listed reforms that are under way or have been
implemented, including business process mapping, an electronic application
tool, policy guidance, regional forums, and technical assistance to
states. We disagree with Labor's characterization. Our analysis looked at
the complete application process from a grantee's perspective. We reviewed
files for every regular grant that was awarded between July 1, 2000, and
June 30, 2003, for which complete information was available and compared
the date that Labor received the application to the date Labor issued an
award letter to the grantee. In addition, our conclusions about the
weaknesses in the improvements being undertaken in the grant award process
are based upon Labor's proposed guidelines and discussions with Labor
officials. Finally, our report acknowledges the efforts listed by Labor in
its comments.

Background

WIA specifies separate funding streams for each of the act's main client
groups-adults, youths, and dislocated workers. A dislocated worker is an
individual who (1) has been terminated or laid off, or who has received a
notice of termination or layoff, from employment; is eligible for or has
exhausted entitlement to unemployment insurance; or who is not eligible
for unemployment insurance but has been employed for a sufficient duration
to demonstrate attachment to the workforce and who is unlikely to return
to his or her previous industry or occupation; (2) has been terminated or
laid off, or who has received a notice of termination or layoff, from
employment as a result of any permanent plant closure of, or substantial
layoff at, a plant, facility, or enterprise; (3) was self-employed but is
unemployed as a result of general economic conditions in the community in
which the individual resides or because of natural disasters; or (4) is a
displaced homemaker.3

Under WIA, dislocated workers can receive three levels of service-core,
intensive, and training. Core services include job search and placement
assistance, the provision of labor market information, and preliminary
assessment of skills and needs. These services are available to anyone
seeking such assistance, whether or not that person is a dislocated
worker. Intensive services are provided to dislocated workers needing
additional services to find a job. Intensive services include
comprehensive assessments, development of an individual employment plan,
case management, and short-term prevocational services.4 Dislocated
workers can also receive training services, including occupational skills
training, on-the-job training, skill upgrading, and entrepreneurial
training.

The Secretary of Labor retains 20 percent of dislocated worker funds in a
national reserve account to be used for national emergency grants,
demonstrations, and technical assistance and allots the remaining funds to
each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico according
to a specific formula. In a previous report, GAO identified several issues
with the formula to allocate dislocated worker funds that limit Labor's

3A displaced homemaker is an individual who has been providing unpaid
services to family members in the home and who (1) has been dependent on
the income of another family member but is no longer supported by that
income and (2) is unemployed or underemployed and is experiencing
difficulty in obtaining or upgrading employment.

4Short-term prevocational services prepare individuals for employment or
training and include development of learning skills, communication skills,
interviewing skills, punctuality, personal maintenance, and professional
conduct.

ability to allocate funds to states according to their need.5 For example,
one problem we identified is that the formula allocates funds based on
factors, such as the number of long-term unemployed in each state, that
are not clearly aligned with the program's target population. During
program years 2000-2002, Labor was allotted about $4.7 billion for
dislocated worker activities. For program year 2003, approximately $1.4
billion was allotted for dislocated worker activities, of which about $272
million was reserved by the Secretary of Labor. Of the amount reserved by
the Secretary in any program year, not more than 10 percent can be used
for demonstrations and pilot projects relating to the employment and
training needs of dislocated workers. Such projects can include those that
promote self-employment, promote job creation, and avert dislocations. In
addition, not more than 5 percent can be used for technical assistance to
states that do not meet performance measures established for dislocated
worker activities. At least 85 percent of the Secretary's 20 percent funds
must be used for national emergency grants (see fig.1).

5U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related
to Allocation Formulas for Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers,
GAO-03-636 (Washington, D.C., April 25, 2003).

Figure 1: Funding Reserved from the Dislocated Worker Allotment for the
Secretary of Labor

National emergency grant funds are used for several different types of
grants, including

o  	Regular grants. These provide employment and training assistance to
workers who lost their jobs because of layoffs and plant closings.

o  	Disaster grants. These provide temporary employment to workers
affected by natural disasters and other catastrophic events.

o  	Dual enrollment grants. These provide supplemental assistance to
workers who have been certified by Labor to receive services under the
Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002. Workers eligible under
dual enrollment grants are typically workers who have lost their jobs
because of increased imports from, or shifts in production to, foreign
countries.

Grantees apply for national emergency grants when their dislocated worker
formula funds are insufficient to meet the needs of affected workers.
Entities that are eligible to receive regular national emergency grants
are:

o  the designated state WIA program agency,

o  a local workforce investment area agency,

o  	a consortium of local workforce investment boards for adjoining areas,
and

o  	a designated organization receiving funds through the Native American
program provision of WIA.

For regular national emergency grants covering more than one state,
eligible grantees are limited to a consortium of local workforce
investment boards for adjoining local areas or a consortium of states. For
disaster and dual enrollment grants, eligible grantees are limited to
states. For national emergency grants awarded from program years 2000 to
2002, 241 grants were awarded to states and 6 grants were awarded to local
areas.

National emergency grants are discretionary awards by the Secretary of
Labor that are intended to temporarily expand service capacity at the
state and local levels by providing time-limited funding assistance in
response to major layoffs. National emergency grant funds may be used to
provide core, intensive, and training services.6 For disaster-related
projects, funds may be used for temporary employment assistance on
projects that provide food, clothing, and shelter, as well as on projects
that perform demolition, cleaning, repair, renovation, and reconstruction.
According to Labor, projects funded by national emergency grants must be
designed to achieve performance outcomes that support the performance goal
commitments by the Secretary under the Government Performance and Results
Act. Labor will provide target performance levels for national emergency
grant projects through separate policy guidance. Beginning July 1, 2004,
national emergency grant projects will be subject to the common measures
for employment and training programs, including entered employment, job
retention, and earnings increase. Participants in temporary disaster
projects are expected to receive necessary assistance to return to the
workforce.

Between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003 (covering program years 2000,
2001, and 2002), Labor distributed about $600 million from the dislocated
worker reserved funds for national emergency grants to 46 states, the
District of Columbia, Guam, and the Federated States of Micronesia (see
fig. 2).7 California, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin received the largest amount of grant
funds, at least $20 million each.

6National emergency grant funds may not be used to pay for any costs of
core services that have already been budgeted under available formula
funds.

7In program year 2002, Labor also awarded about $3 million to 24 states to
provide funding support for system-building costs associated with the
provision of the new health care coverage benefits for eligible
individuals and related tax credits and about $14 million to 4 states to
provide insurance payments to eligible dislocated workers as authorized by
the Trade Reform Act of 2002. Both of these types of awards are funded
through a separate appropriation.

Figure 2: Distribution of National Emergency Grant Funds for Regular,
Disaster, and Dual Enrollment Grants from July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2003

Sources: GAO analysis of Labor grant awards during program years 2000
through 2002.

Appendix II lists the amount of funds Labor distributed to each state for
regular, disaster, and dual enrollment national emergency grants between
July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003. Nearly two-thirds of the 247 grants

awarded and about 60 percent of the funds awarded were for regular grants
(see fig. 3). According to Labor officials, no grant applications received
between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003 are still pending.

Figure 3: Percentage of Grants Awarded and Funds Awarded for Program Years
2000-2002, by Type of Grant

In any program year, the Secretary can only award national emergency
grants from funds available for that program year. That is, funds reserved
for national emergency grants in program year 2002 must be awarded by June
30, 2003-the last day of program year 2002.

The current system for submission and review of grant applications is
manual and paper-based. States and local areas submit an application via
mail or fax. Each national emergency grant application generally contains
information on key aspects of the proposed project, such as amount of
funds requested, planned number of participants, planned starting and end
dates, planned expenditures by type of program activity, and expected
performance outcomes, including how many participants they believe will
become employed and what they believe their new wages will be. Labor

officials review the application and draft a decision memorandum that
contains their recommendation as to whether the grant should be awarded
and, if so, at what amount. The decision memorandum is forwarded to the
Secretary, who makes the final award decision. After the Secretary's award
decision, Labor notifies the appropriate congressional office and issues
the award letter to the grantee. National emergency grant awards can be
disbursed in a single payment or in increments. In most cases, the initial
increment will be for 6 months to enable a project to achieve full
enrollment. For grants disbursed in more than one payment, grantees are
required to submit supplemental information along with their requests for
future incremental payments. This information generally includes the
actual number of participants, performance outcomes, and expenditures.

Grantees provide information to Labor on their use of grant funds through
periodic progress reports.8 Grantees submit periodic progress reports on
their use of national emergency grant funds to Labor regional offices that
monitor and oversee the grants. Grantees are required to submit the
reports on a quarterly basis for regular and dual enrollment grants and on
a biweekly basis for disaster grants. Progress reports generally contain
information on the number of participants who registered for the program
and received various services. They also contain the number of
participants who entered employment, which Labor uses to assess grantees'
performance.

States are required annually to submit to a national database, called the
Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD), information on
WIA participants who have left the program, including those who have left
national emergency grant-funded programs. The WIASRD contains information
on the types of services that each WIA participant receives, such as
intensive or training services. For participants that received training,
the WIASRD also contains information on the types of training activities
they participated in, such as on-the-job training, adult education or
basic literacy activities, or occupational skills training.

8National emergency grant progress reports are a separate reporting
requirement from WIA quarterly reports that states submit for their adult,
dislocated worker, and youth programs. States are not required to report
data on national emergency grants in the WIA quarterly or annual reports.

  Delays in Grant Awards Hampered Services to Dislocated Workers

Labor's grant process is not as effective as it could be because most
grants are not awarded in a timely manner, and as a result, services to
workers in some states have been delayed, interrupted, or denied. During
program years 2000-2002, Labor's goal was to approve national emergency
grants within 30 calendar days of receiving a complete application. On
average, 92 days elapsed between the date Labor received a regular
national emergency grant application and the date the award letter was
signed. Labor was more likely to award grants toward the end of the
program year, with nearly 40 percent of the grant awards made in the final
month. Twenty-five of the 38 states responding to our survey reported that
as a result of delays in receiving grant funds, services to dislocated
workers were delayed, interrupted, or denied.

    Labor's Counting toward Timeliness Goal Does Not Reflect the Full Grant
    Award Process

The way Labor measures its progress toward meeting its timeliness goal
does not reflect the full process for awarding national emergency grants.
During program years 2000-2002, Labor's goal was to approve national
emergency grants within 30 calendar days of receiving a "complete"
application. Labor contends that states, in their haste, often submit
applications that require additional work and that the requests for funds
cannot be processed until shortcomings are addressed. As a result, states
may turn in their applications several times before Labor starts counting
the days elapsed toward meeting its timeliness goal. Labor ends its
counting once the Secretary approves the grant, although additional time
is required to notify the appropriate congressional office and issue the
award letter. For our analysis, we began counting on the first day Labor
received a state's application and continued even if states had to make
revisions for the application to be considered complete by Labor. We did
not stop counting until award letters were sent. Our counting more
accurately reflects the grantee's perspective: It begins at the first
request for funds and ends at the point that funds can be obligated.
Figure 4 compares the points at which Labor starts and stops counting the
days elapsed toward meeting its 30-day goal and the points at which GAO
started and stopped counting the days in our analysis.

  Figure 4: Difference between How GAO and Labor Track the Grant Award Process

    Most Grant Awards Took Longer than 30 Days

We found that, on average, Labor took 92 days from the time an application
was received to send a grant award letter. Nearly 90 percent of the
regular grants awarded from July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2003 took more than
30 days to award.9 Approximately 11 percent of the regular grants awarded
during program years 2000-2002 took 30 or fewer days to award, whereas
nearly half took more than 90 days (see fig. 5).

9Throughout the report, we define grant award as the date the award letter
was sent and at which time grantees can begin obligating funds.

Figure 5: Percentage of Regular Grants Awarded during Program Years
2000-2002 within Specified Time Frames

Note: Although 159 regular grants were awarded between July 1, 2000, and
June 30, 2003, this information is based upon our review and analysis of
141 grants for which complete information was available.

Labor took less time to award disaster and dual enrollment grants than it
did to award regular grants. Dual enrollment grants, which represent about
a third of the funds awarded during program years 2000-2002, took an
average of 20 days to award, and disaster grants, which represent less
than 10 percent of the funds awarded, took an average of 48 days.10

10Although 19 disaster grants and 68 dual enrollment grants were awarded
between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003, this information is based upon
our review and analysis of 11 disaster grants and 49 dual enrollment
grants for which complete information was available.

    Grant Applications Submitted Early in the Program Year Took Longer to Award,
    and Most Grants Were Awarded Later in the Year

The amount of time Labor took to award regular grants appeared to be
related to the quarter in which the application was received. For example,
regular grant applications received in the first quarter of a program year
took longer to award than applications received in the second, third, and
fourth quarters (see table 1).

Table 1: Average Time to Award Grants by Quarter in Which Application Was
Received during Program Years 2000-2002

Quarter application was received Average number of days to award grant

First

Second

Third

Fourth

Source: GAO analysis of Labor grant awards during program years 2000
through 2002.

Labor awards most of the regular grants later in the year. Nearly 60
percent of all regular grants were awarded in the fourth quarter of the
program year, representing nearly two-thirds of the regular grant funds
awarded. This trend exists despite the fact that about the same proportion
of applications are received in the second, third, and fourth quarters of
the program year: Over 30 percent of the applications were submitted
during the second quarter of the program year, and about 27 percent were
submitted in the third and fourth quarters (see fig. 6).

Figure 6: Percentage of Regular Grant Applications and Awards by Quarter
during Program Years 2000-2002

Although applications were received at a steady rate throughout the last
three quarters of the program year, about 40 percent of the regular grants
were awarded in June, the final month of the program year, representing
about one-half of the regular grant funds awarded. Moreover, the
percentage of applications submitted by month during the program year did
not significantly increase as the year went on, with October (the fourth
month of the program year), being the month when the largest percentage of
applications was submitted (see fig. 7).

Figure 7: Percentage of Regular Grant Applications and Awards by Month
during Program Years 2000-2002

             Percentage of regular grant applications and awards 45

Approximately 80 percent of the incremental payments made during program
years 2000-2002 took longer than 30 days for Labor to award (see fig.
8).11 On average, Labor took 83 days to award incremental payments,

11Although 44 regular grant incremental payments were made between July 1,
2000, and June 30, 2003, this information is based upon our review and
analysis of 36 payments for which complete information was available.

                                       40

                                       35

                                       30

                                       25

                                       20

                                       15

                                      10 5

                                 0 Applications

  Source: GAO analysis of Labor grant awards during program years 2000 through
                                     2002.

June was the most prevalent month for awarding other types of grants as
well. About 42 percent of the disaster grants and 90 percent of the dual
enrollment grants were awarded in the last month of the program year.
Award dates were more closely linked to application dates for dual
enrollment grants because, according to Labor officials, grantees apply
for these grants near the end of the program year, when Trade Act funds
become exhausted. The vast majority (92 percent) of the dual enrollment
applications were submitted in the last 2 months of the program year.

    Incremental Payments Also Took Longer than 30 Days to Award

which is 9 days quicker than the average number of days Labor took to make
initial regular grant awards. Labor officials attributed delays to
grantees submitting incomplete requests that require additional work. On
the other hand, some state officials said that they were unclear about the
requirements for requesting an incremental payment because of lack of
guidelines on how to submit a request. During program years 2000-2002,
Labor awarded 43 incremental payments totaling about $84 million.
According to Labor, grantees should expect that all grant awards will be
funded incrementally.

Figure 8: Percentage of Regular Grant Incremental Payments Awarded within
Specified Time Frames

Delays Hindered States' Thirty-three of the 38 states that responded to
our survey said that the

Abilities to Serve Workers 	amount of time it took to receive regular
grant funds was a major problem. Eight of these states were awarded five
or more regular grants during program years 2000-2002, and Labor averaged
between 51 and 103 days to award grants to these states (see fig. 9).

Figure 9: Average Number of Days to Award Regular Grants to States with at
Least Five Grants during Program Years 2000-2002

Twenty-five states said that because of the delays in receiving grant
funds, local areas had to delay or deny services to dislocated workers. In
most of these states, the delays affected local areas' ability to place
dislocated workers in training. Twenty of these states reported that local
areas had to delay or cancel training for dislocated workers because,
while waiting for national emergency grant funds, they did not have funds
available to enroll workers in training. For example, Massachusetts
officials noted that workers in one local area were placed on waiting
lists for 3 to 4 months before they received training. Similarly, Nevada
officials reported that a local area cancelled training for more than 300
workers because of a delay in receiving grant funds. Six states also
reported that local areas could not provide intensive services, such as
case management, to workers because of delays in receiving grant funds.
For example, Kentucky reported that while waiting to receive national
emergency grant funds, local areas could only provide workers with core
services and could not provide workers

  Labor Has Taken Steps to Improve the Grant Award Process, but Additional
  Actions are Needed

with job training, career counseling, case management, or supportive
services, such as assistance with transportation and child care.12

Labor has taken steps that may improve the process for awarding national
emergency grants, but additional actions are needed to better manage the
grant award process. Labor is moving from a paper-based system for
reviewing grant applications to an electronic system that will enable
states or local areas to apply for grants online. Labor has also
documented its goal to make an award decision within 30 business days of
receiving a complete application.13 However, some weaknesses still remain
in Labor's planned changes that could prevent Labor from accurately
assessing how long it takes to make grant awards and incremental payments.

    Labor's Actions Are a Step in the Right Direction

Labor has made a number of changes intended to improve the efficiency of
the application process by helping applicants submit applications that are
as close to being complete as possible. Labor has clarified its
application requirements in guidance issued on January 26, 2004.14 In
addition, Labor has conducted training for states on providing an
integrated service response for dislocated workers, including training on
the requirements for receiving national emergency grants. Labor also plans
to provide technical assistance and work with states on an individual
basis to help them fully integrate services available to dislocated
workers through the one-stop service delivery system. Furthermore, Labor
plans to implement a new electronic system by July 1, 2004, that would
allow applicants to submit applications electronically. The new system
will automatically check applications for missing or inconsistent
information, such as blanks that should be filled in or numbers that do
not add up correctly. If any problems are found, the system notifies
applicants. Only when the system no longer finds problems with the
application will it allow the application to go forward. In doing so, the
system ensures that each required field contains information and that
information in different fields is consistent, but it cannot check the
quality of the information submitted.

12The three grants awarded to Kentucky grantees took 71, 122, and 181 days
from when the grant applications were received to when the award letter
was signed.

13Labor will no longer include weekends and holidays when counting toward
its 30-day goal.

14U.S. Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance Letter No.
16-03 (Washington, D.C., 2004).

The electronic system will also replace Labor's paper-based system for
managing the application review process. The electronic system will count
how many days have elapsed since the application was submitted and track
the progress of various steps of the review. Specifically, the system

o  	automatically assigns applications to staff for review within a day of
submission,

o  	reassigns an application to another staff person if the staff
originally assigned is not available,

o  	gives each staff person a deadline for completing his or her part of
the review,

o  tracks the date that staff complete their responsibilities,

o  	automatically transfers information from the application into the
decision memorandum, and

o  	enables managers to check on the progress of the review, including how
long specific parts of the review are taking.

As part of a reengineering project, Labor contracted with IBM to review
Labor's grant award process. IBM reviewed Labor's current grant award
process as well as the new electronic system to determine whether any
further improvements would be needed.15 In addition, IBM is planning to
conduct further review of other areas such as staffing levels, skills, and
workflow patterns.

Finally, Labor is planning to issue guidelines that document its
timeliness goal. As stated in the proposed guidelines, the goal will be to
make a grant award decision within 30 business days of receiving a
complete application. These guidelines had not been issued as of April 6,
2004.

    Additional Actions Needed to Better Manage Grant Award Process

Some weaknesses still remain in Labor's planned changes that could prevent
Labor from accurately assessing how long it takes to make grant awards and
incremental payments. First, the way Labor has defined its 30day goal
allows the agency to stop counting the number of days elapsed if it finds
problems with the grant application.16 For example, if Labor finds a major
problem, such as with a planned expenditure for a program activity,

15U.S. Department of Labor, National Emergency Grants Program: NEG Review
Process Reengineering Project: Phase I Report, Final Report (March 9,
2004).

16The proposed guidelines also state that Labor will restart the counting
if a state submits a revised application that Labor has not requested.

it will stop the electronic system's counting of days elapsed and ask the
state or local area to revise the application. After the state or local
area submits a revised application, Labor will start the counting at day
one (see fig. 10). However, if Labor finds a minor problem with the
application, such as insufficient justification in the narrative
explanation for the proposed number of dislocated workers to be enrolled,
it will stop the counting and, once the state or local area submits a
revised application, will restart the counting from the day it left off.
Because of Labor's ability to stop its counting of days elapsed, its
tracking system may not accurately reflect the number of days it takes
Labor to award grants or allow Labor to identify how long particular steps
in the process contribute to the amount of time it takes to award grants.

Figure 10: New Process for Awarding National Emergency Grants and Number
of Days Allowed in Each Step

Day 0 Day 1 Days 2-6

              Labor reviews applications and drafts decision memo.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by Labor.

A second problem is that Labor's timeliness goal still only includes the
days up to the Secretary's award decision, leaving the agency unable to
identify delays that occur after the award decision. Labor's proposed
guidelines specify a goal to approve or disapprove applications within 30
business days from receipt of a complete and responsive application. As
stated, the goal would not include the steps between the Secretary's
approval and the issuance of the award letter, such as the notification of
congressional offices of the award, the preparation of the award letter,
and the preparation for the disbursement of funds. With some grants
awarded in program years 2000 to 2002, 20 or more calendar days passed
between the date the Secretary approved the grant by signing the decision

  Little Is Known about How Grant Funds Are Used because of Weaknesses in Data
  Collection

memorandum and the date Labor issued the award letter to the grantee.17
For example, for a grant awarded to Missouri, 34 days passed between the
date the Secretary signed the decision memorandum and the date the award
letter was sent. Such delays can interfere with a state or local area's
ability to take steps necessary to begin to provide services such as
entering into contracts with training providers or hiring staff.

A third weakness is that Labor's proposed guidelines do not establish a
timeliness goal for awarding incremental payments, despite stating that
most grants will be awarded incrementally. Labor has stated that the
amount of time to approve incremental payments should be no longer than
the time required to review the original application-30 business days.18
However, this goal has not been formally documented in the proposed
guidelines. In addition, the electronic system does not allow grantees to
apply for incremental payments online, and it will not track the progress
of the review of requests for incremental payments. Labor plans to use a
manual process to track its progress toward meeting its 30-day goal for
incremental payments.

Little is known on a national level about how national emergency grant
funds are used because of weaknesses in two data sources, and although
Labor is taking steps to improve the data collected, these steps may not
go far enough to ensure the data's reliability. Data in progress reports
submitted by grantees to Labor could not be analyzed on a national level
because the reports' data elements vary from grantee to grantee and the
information is not available electronically. Furthermore, the reliability
of information contained in Labor's national database on participants
served by WIA funds, including national emergency grants, cannot be
ensured because the data are incomplete and unverified. Labor's steps to
address some of these issues may not go far enough to rectify data
problems. For progress reports, Labor has not issued detailed guidance to
ensure that data elements are defined consistently. In addition, although
Labor has checked states' most recent submissions to the national
participant database to identify whether data are missing, Labor does not
have

17This information is based upon the review and analysis of 16 grants for
which 150 or more calendar days elapsed between the date the original
grant application was received and the date the award letter was sent.

18Awarding of incremental payments does not require the approval of the
Secretary of Labor.

specific plans to check states' future submissions to ensure that data are
complete.

    Data Collected Is Inconsistent and Unreliable

Neither of the two primary data sources on the national emergency grant
program-progress reports and WIASRD-can be used to provide accurate
national-level information on the use of national emergency grant funds.19
Largely because of a lack of clear guidance, grantees are not submitting
reliable information to both data sources.

Data in progress reports cannot be summarized to provide a national
picture of how grant funds are used because not all states reported the
same data. Labor has not issued guidance under WIA on the submission of
national emergency grant progress reports, and as a result, the data
submitted in reports vary from grantee to grantee. For example, while most
of the 13 states that we obtained sample reports from provided information
on the number of people enrolled in training, only about half reported the
number enrolled in core and intensive services, and just one reported
expenditures by type of service (see table 2).

Table 2: Information Contained in Progress Reports from 13 States

Number of states that Number of states that did Data element provided
informationa not provide information

Enrollments in core services 7

Enrollments in intensive services 5

Enrollments in training services 11

Expenditures by types of services 1

Entered employment 12

Source: GAO analysis of progress reports provided by Labor regional
offices.

aThis includes states that provided information in some but not all cases.

In addition, grantees may interpret the data elements in different ways.
For example, according to Labor regional officials, states vary in how
they

19Some information on use of national emergency grant funds is available
in a study conducted by Social Policy Research Associates and funded by
the Department of Labor. This study provides information on nine programs
funded by national emergency grants in eight states. The sample of
projects was not selected to be representative of the whole population of
national emergency grant projects.

define "entered employment." Some states use the WIA definition, which
calculates entered employment using quarterly unemployment insurance wage
reports that may not be available until several months after the person
has started a job. Other states use the definition under the Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA) program that WIA replaced, which calculates the
number using information gathered by the caseworker at the time the person
is placed in employment. A grantee that uses the WIA definition may appear
to place workers in employment less effectively than a grantee that uses
the JTPA definition because the grantee using the WIA definition must wait
several months before reporting that a participant entered employment.20
Furthermore, the data in progress reports are not electronically available
or stored in a central location because Labor does not have an electronic
system through which grantees can submit the reports. Instead, grantees
submit the reports to the appropriate regional office by e-mail or as
paper documents, making analysis of the data cumbersome.

Labor's guidance is not as clear as it could be about whether states are
required to submit to WIASRD data on participants served with national
emergency grant funds. One part of the WIASRD reporting instructions says
that states are required to provide data for participants who exited WIA
Title I-B services, which are services offered by the adult, dislocated
worker, and youth formula funds programs.21 A Labor official and a manager
of the WIASRD database stated that this part of the guidance could be
interpreted by states to mean that they are not required to submit data to
WIASRD for other programs, such as national emergency grants. In addition,
some Labor officials we spoke with believed that states were not required
to submit WIASRD data on all national emergency grant participants.

Either because the data were not submitted or were submitted incorrectly,
WIASRD does not contain data for all states that received national
emergency grants. The program year 2001 WIASRD contained no data for five
states that collectively received 16 grants in program year 2000,
constituting 23 percent of the grants awarded in that year (see table 3).
In

20Use of unemployment insurance wage reports to determine the number of
participants who entered employment is generally considered to be more
reliable than use of information gathered by caseworkers.

21U.S. Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance Letter No.
14-00 (Washington, D.C., 2001).

addition, it contained few data for Rhode Island, although a Rhode Island
official said that 210 participants exited national emergency grant
programs in program year 2001.

Table 3: Comparison of State's PY2001 WIASRD National Emergency Grant
Participant Records with Grants Received in PY2000

Number of national

                                           emergency grant Number of national
                              participant records in emergency grants awarded
                                       program year 2001 in program year 2000
                              State WIASRD (7/1/01-6/30/02) (7/1/00-6/30/01)a

Alabama 0

New Jersey 0

Ohio 0

Rhode Island 7

Virginia 0

Wisconsin 0

Source: GAO analysis of the program year 2001 WIASRD and list of program
year 2000 grants provided by Labor.

aIncludes incremental payments received from 7/1/00 to 6/30/01.

However, even if the data submitted to WIASRD on national emergency grants
were complete, questions about their accuracy would persist. In its review
of state-reported WIA performance data, Labor's Office of Inspector
General (OIG) concluded that little assurance exists that the data are
accurate or verifiable because of inadequate oversight of data collection
and management at the federal, state, and local levels.22 A recent GAO
report confirmed the OIG's findings.23

Labor Is Taking Actions Labor has developed a standard reporting form and
electronic system for

to Improve Data 	national emergency grant progress reports and plans to
implement these changes in July 2004. Labor's proposed guidelines require
grantees to use a particular reporting form to submit information on a
quarterly basis on the

22Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Workforce Investment
Act Performance Outcomes Reporting Oversight, 06-02-006-03-390
(Washington, D.C., Sept. 30, 2002).

23U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions
Can Help States Improve Quality of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery
of Youth Services, GAO-04-308, (Washington, D.C., February 23, 2004).

number of participants receiving intensive services, training, and other
services, as well as expenditures on these various services, the number of
participants who exited the program, and the number of participants who
entered employment. A standard reporting form is likely to increase the
consistency of grantee-reported data by ensuring that grantees submit
information on the same data elements. However, Labor has not yet issued
guidance informing grantees how to define data elements such as the number
of participants who have entered employment. Without common definitions,
grantees may submit inconsistent data based on their different
interpretations of data elements. In addition, Labor's electronic system
for managing the grant application process will enable grantees to submit
their progress reports electronically. The system will compile the data
into an electronic dataset, facilitating analysis of the data.

Labor is also taking steps to improve the completeness and accuracy of
WIASRD data on national emergency grant participants. In guidance issued
on November 13, 2003, for the submission of program year 2002 data, Labor
specified that states are required to include participants who exited from
national emergency grant programs.24 According to Labor officials, the
agency also plans to clarify the WIASRD reporting requirements for
national emergency grants in new guidance on performance measures to be
issued by July 2004. In addition, for the program year 2002 WIASRD, Labor
checked states' submissions to determine whether data had been submitted
for all grants awarded. For states whose submissions were missing data,
Labor requested that they send in a revised submission that included data
on national emergency grants. However, managers of the WIASRD database
said that some states were not able to send in data on national emergency
grant participants, and as a result, the program year 2002 WIASRD will not
have complete data. Although Labor does not have specific, written plans
to check states' future WIASRD submissions to identify missing data, a
Labor official believes the agency will continue to check submissions.
Labor is also planning to implement a data validation program to ensure
the accuracy of state-reported data on national emergency grant
participants. According to Labor officials, this program is in the early
planning stages and no date has been set for its implementation.

24U.S. Department of Labor, Training and Employment Guidance Letter No.
14-03 (Washington, D.C., 2003).

Conclusions

Recommendations for Executive Action

With nearly 7 million workers losing their jobs in the few years since the
turn of the century, increasing importance has been placed on programs
intended to help dislocated workers. When major layoffs and disasters
occur, states and local areas need to respond quickly to ensure that
workers facing unemployment receive the services they need to re-enter the
workforce at a comparable wage. Unfortunately, their dislocated worker
formula funds are often insufficient to adequately meet the needs of the
large number of workers losing their jobs. In previous work, we found that
the formula used to allocate dislocated worker funds does not always
result in states receiving the amount of funds they need. Accordingly,
states and local areas turn to Labor for additional funds, such as those
reserved by Labor for national emergency grants.

Timely awarding of national emergency grants is imperative for states and
local areas to provide services when they are most needed. Therefore, it
is important that Labor consider the length of time it takes to complete
the full process for awarding grants. Although Labor is making changes to
the award process, some concerns remain. Labor does not have a timeliness
goal for the full award process or for incremental payments. In addition,
the proposed guidelines do not require the continuous counting of days
from the time the application is received until the grant is awarded-Labor
can stop the clock if officials feel the application is incomplete. As a
result, Labor may appear to meet its timeliness goal even though, from a
grantee's perspective, the grant funds were received months after the
application was filed.

Neither of the two primary data sources on the national emergency grants
provides reliable national-level information on how these funds are used.
Reliable information on how national emergency grant funds are used is
essential for Labor to effectively manage the program and report on a
national level how grant funds are being used.

In order for Labor to better manage the grant award process and to
accurately assess how long it takes to make grant awards and incremental
payments, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor take additional
actions. In particular, Labor should

o  	set timeliness goals for the full process-from the receipt of the
application until the award letter is sent-for initial grant awards and
incremental payments; and

  Agency Comments

o  	continuously track the number of days that have passed, beginning when
applications are first submitted and until the award letter is sent,
including days grantees spend revising their applications.

In addition, to ensure that information relating to national emergency
grants is accurate and complete, we recommend that Labor

o  	develop specific reporting guidance on progress reports to ensure that
grantees define data elements consistently, and

o  	ensure that all states submit WIASRD data on participants exiting from
services provided with national emergency grants (for grantees that are
not states, ensure that they submit WIASRD data on national emergency
grants to states for submission to Labor).

We provided a draft of this report to officials at Labor for their review
and comment. In its comments, Labor took issue with the report's
methodology, said it believes that the report makes assertions not
supported by empirical evidence, and disagreed with our conclusions. Labor
stated that timeliness of national emergency grants has been a concern
dating back to JTPA and that the current administration set a goal of 30
working days to provide states with an answer to a complete application.
Labor also contends that the weaknesses in the improvements being
undertaken in the grant award process that we cite in the report are
subjective and inaccurate. Finally, Labor listed reforms that are under
way or have been implemented, including business process mapping, an
electronic application tool, policy guidance, regional forums, and
technical assistance to states.

We disagree with Labor's characterization of the report's methodology and
conclusions. As stated in the report, our analysis looked at the complete
application process from a grantee's perspective. We reviewed files for
every regular grant that was awarded between July 1, 2000, and June 30,
2003, for which complete information was available and compared the date
that Labor received the application with the date Labor issued an award
letter to the grantee. States and local areas apply for national emergency
grants when a major layoff occurs, and it is imperative that grantees
receive funds in a timely manner to provide assistance when it is most
needed. Accordingly, we believe that the date the application is received
is an appropriate starting point for the grant award process. If
applications are incomplete, then this issue should be addressed and the
application moved forward in a timely manner. We recognize a shared

responsibility to ensure that grant applications are complete and
accurate, and as pointed out in our report, Labor has taken steps to
assist grantees in submitting applications that are as close to being
complete as possible. We also believe that the ending date should be when
the grantee is notified of the award rather than at an interim
departmental approval point. As we reported, the final steps after Labor
has stopped the clock on the award process have taken an additional 20 or
more days in some cases. Delays in grant awards have had effects on the
ability of local areas to provide services to workers who have lost their
jobs, as reported by 25 states that responded to our survey on national
emergency grants. For Labor to have set a goal for the award process is
commendable, but the emphasis needs to be on awarding national emergency
grants as quickly as possible to allow local areas to meet the needs of
dislocated workers.

We also disagree that the stated weaknesses in the improvements being
undertaken in the grant award process are subjective and inaccurate.
Rather these weaknesses are based upon Labor's proposed guidelines and
discussions with Labor officials. First, Labor's proposed guidelines state
that Labor is committed to making a decision to approve or disapprove an
application within 30 working days of receiving a complete application. As
pointed out in our report, there are steps that follow this decision that
have taken another 20 days in some cases, and Labor's counting of days
elapsed may not always be continuous. We believe the 30-day goal should
include the entire process. Second, the proposed guidelines do not relate
the 30-day goal to incremental payments, and Labor officials confirmed
that incremental payments are not yet included in the new electronic
system. Third, while the proposed guidelines provide a form for progress
reports, Labor officials acknowledged that data element definitions have
not yet been developed. Finally, while a Labor official speculated that
checking the completeness of states' submissions to the WIASRD database
would continue, no such plans have been documented. We believe that to
better manage the national emergency grant award process, these additional
actions should be implemented.

In regard to the reforms cited by Labor in its comments, our report
identified all of these efforts except for the proposed technical
assistance. We have added a statement to the report to indicate that Labor
plans to provide technical assistance and work with states on an
individual basis to help them fully integrate services available to
dislocated workers through the one-stop service delivery system. Labor's
comments are in appendix

IV.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 14 days from
its
issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to relevant
congressional committees and other interested parties and will make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me
at (202) 512-7215. Other major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix V.

Sigurd R. Nilsen
Director, Education, Workforce,

and Income Security Issues

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We were asked to determine (1) the effectiveness of the overall process
for awarding national emergency grant funds, (2) whether Labor's proposed
changes will improve the grant award process, and (3) what is known about
how grant funds are being used. To respond to these issues, we interviewed
Labor officials at both headquarters and regional offices, reviewed Labor
files for all grants awarded during program years 2000 through 2002, and
surveyed officials in the 39 states that had received at least one regular
national emergency grant during that period. We also reviewed Labor's two
data sources that contain information on the use of national emergency
grants. We conducted our work from March 2003 to March 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

File Review 	We obtained from Labor a listing of all national emergency
grants awarded between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003. We then reviewed
files maintained by Labor to identify when the original application was
submitted and received and the date the award letter was signed. For those
grants funded incrementally, we also identified when the incremental
funding request was submitted and received and the date the incremental
award letter was sent. We limited our analysis to those grants funded with
the Secretary's reserve from the dislocated worker funds under the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA). For some grants, documentation on when the
application was received was not in the files (see table 4).

Table 4: Number of National Emergency Grants Awarded and Used in GAO
Analysis

                                                              Number of files 
                                     Number of grants     containing complete 
                                 awarded between July information used in our 
                                                   1, 
                  Type of grant    2000, and June 30,                analysis 
                                                 2003 
                 Regular grants                   159 
                Disaster grants                    19 
         Dual enrollment grants                    69                      49 

Source: GAO analysis of national emergency grants awarded between July 1,
2000, and June 30, 2003.

Using information contained in the files, for each grant we calculated the
number of calendar days between the date Labor received the original grant
application and the date of the grant award letter.

For 16 grants for which 150 or more calendar days elapsed between the date
the original grant application was received and the date the award letter
was sent, we conducted a detailed review of the grant files to

                 Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

determine how long various steps of the review process took. We identified
dates that applicants submitted additional information, dates that Labor
received the additional information, dates of the decision memorandum,
dates that the Secretary signed the decision memorandum, and dates that
various Labor staff approved the award letter. We then calculated the
number of calendar days that elapsed between each of these dates.

Survey of States That To obtain information on states' experiences with
the process for

Received Regular Grants 	receiving national emergency grants, we conducted
an e-mail survey of officials in 39 states that received at least one
regular grant in program years 2000 to 2002 (see figure 11).

Source: GAO analysis of national emergency grants awarded between July 1,
2000 and June 30, 2003.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We received responses from 38 states (a 97 percent response rate).1 We
limited the survey to regular grants because they constituted about 60
percent of the grants awarded, representing about 64 percent of the funds,
in that time period. Although Labor also awarded four regular grants to
local areas in program years 2000 to 2002, we limited our survey to state
officials because the number of local grantees was too small to be
meaningful.

We identified the states that received regular grants from a list that
Labor provided of grants awarded in program years 2000 to 2002 and the
state in which they were awarded.2

In developing our survey, we conducted pretests with three states. We
contacted respondents to clarify information when needed. We analyzed the
survey data by calculating descriptive statistics, as well as performing
content analysis of the responses to open-ended survey questions.

  Assessment of Data Quality

To determine whether progress reports might be a viable source of data to
determine how national emergency grant funds are used at the national
level, we obtained progress reports from 1 to 3 states from each of the
Labor regional offices. We analyzed the reports to determine how
consistent the data elements were from state to state.

To determine whether the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data
(WIASRD) might be a viable source of data to determine how national
emergency grant funds are used at the national level, we reviewed guidance
issued by Labor and reports issued by Labor's Office of Inspector General
(OIG), state agencies, and Labor contractors. We also interviewed the OIG
official responsible for an audit of WIA's performance data and the
officials from Social Policy Research Associates, the Labor contractor
responsible for compiling the WIASRD. In addition, we performed electronic
tests of the program year 2001 WIASRD data, including

1Illinois did not respond to the survey.

2We initially e-mailed surveys to 42 states, but 3 states contacted us and
explained that they had not received regular grants from program years
2000 to 2002. In 1 state, the grants we had identified as regular were
actually dual enrollment grants. In 2 states, the grants we had identified
as regular were actually incremental payments for grants awarded prior to
program year 2000, when the grants were part of the Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA) program. We confirmed their information with the
grant application files and did not include these 3 states in our survey
population.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

conducting frequencies and cross-tabulations, comparing results with those
in published reports and identifying missing or incorrect values.

To determine the completeness of data on national emergency grants in the
WIASRD, we compared states' data in the program year 2001 WIASRD against a
list of states that had received one or more regular, dual enrollment, or
disaster grants at least one year prior to the end of the reporting period
for the 2001 WIASRD or by June 30, 2001. This analysis assumes that some
participants in a grant program begun in program year 2000 would have
exited during program year 2001. For states for which the 2001 WIASRD did
not contain data on grant participants although they had received grants
in program year 2000, we contacted the states to confirm that participants
served with grants had exited in program year 2001.

We determined that the WIASRD data elements pertinent to this report were
not sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We have discussed the data
reliability issues throughout the body of the report.

  Interviews with Labor Officials

To obtain information on the process for awarding national emergency
grants, we conducted interviews with Labor officials in the Office of
National Response and Office of Grants and Contracts Management. We also
interviewed officials in the Employment and Training Administration's
(ETA) Office of Technology to obtain information on the electronic system
for managing the grant process. To obtain information on reporting
requirements and monitoring and oversight practices for the national
emergency grant program, we interviewed officials in the Office of Field
Operations. We also interviewed officials in all six Labor regions who are
responsible for monitoring and oversight of national emergency grants. In
Region 1, we interviewed both the Boston office and the New York office.

To obtain information on Labor's data validation initiative for national
emergency grants, we interviewed an official in ETA's Performance and
Results Office and a contractor developing the technical components of the
initiative. We also attended a training session on the WIA data validation
initiative held in Labor's San Francisco office for states and local areas
in Region 6.

Appendix II: Summary of Funds Awarded for Regular, Disaster, and Dual Enrollment
Grants for Program Years 2000-2002

            State            Regular     Disaster Dual enrollment       Total 
           Alabama          $1,391,359          0   $8,935,689    $10,327,048 
           Arizona          1,271,931  $2,291,674         456,286   4,019,891 
           Arkansas         8,745,980   1,176,000    1,257,566     11,179,546 
          California        38,631,721          0    8,576,548     47,208,269 
           Colorado         6,411,981           0         797,952   7,209,933 
         Connecticut        5,139,856           0         799,621   5,939,477 
     District of Columbia    876,573            0               0     876,573 
     Federated States of             0  1,150,000               0   1,150,000 
          Micronesia                                              
           Florida          11,064,618          0    6,353,858     17,418,476 
           Georgia          3,446,880           0               0   3,446,880 
             Guam                    0 13,300,000               0  13,300,000 
            Idaho           4,445,674           0    1,800,000      6,245,674 
           Illinois         9,012,466           0    7,238,985     16,251,451 
           Indiana          5,474,686     550,456    1,249,999      7,275,141 
             Iowa           9,540,435     818,561    5,617,404     15,976,400 
            Kansas          3,267,080           0    3,145,175      6,412,255 
           Kentucky         8,084,658           0    2,851,146     10,935,804 
          Louisiana                  0  4,780,000               0   4,780,000 
            Maine           16,396,287          0    1,717,471     18,113,758 
           Maryland         7,884,071   1,000,000         267,245   9,151,316 
        Massachusetts       28,871,460          0    2,764,133     31,635,593 
           Michigan         1,427,657           0    8,436,000      9,863,657 
          Minnesota         13,486,750  1,825,000    4,679,140     19,990,890 
         Mississippi        1,644,366           0               0   1,644,366 
           Missouri         8,693,208   2,876,946    3,863,989     15,434,143 
           Montana          9,638,868   4,314,800         614,322  14,567,990 
           Nebraska         2,168,931           0    1,357,528      3,526,459 
            Nevada          5,800,000           0               0   5,800,000 
        New Hampshire       5,474,859           0                   5,474,859 
          New Jersey        3,570,627           0    6,387,037      9,957,664 
          New Mexico                 0          0         560,842     560,842 
           New York                  0          0    1,561,851      1,561,851 
        North Carolina               0          0   19,373,963     19,373,963 
         North Dakota        378,793            0          99,000     477,793 

Appendix II: Summary of Funds Awarded for Regular, Disaster, and Dual
Enrollment Grants for Program Years 2000-2002

        State             Regular     Disaster Dual enrollment          Total 
         Ohio          15,200,826    1,500,000    10,338,929       27,039,755 
       Oklahoma         2,907,969    1,000,000    2,876,964         6,784,933 
        Oregon         18,151,492            0    8,665,146        26,816,638 
     Pennsylvania      20,319,216            0    49,071,363       69,390,579 
     Rhode Island       1,027,470            0    2,068,236         3,095,706 
    South Carolina      1,895,619            0    1,519,039         3,414,658 
     South Dakota       2,308,571            0          123,694     2,432,265 
      Tennessee         4,827,774            0          888,873     5,716,647 
        Texas          23,776,743            0    3,011,738        26,788,481 
         Utah                   0            0          740,230       740,230 
       Vermont            750,000            0          635,877     1,385,877 
       Virginia        22,350,000            0    3,303,031        25,653,031 
      Washington       11,768,668            0    13,661,486       25,430,154 
    West Virginia               0  12,499,990                 0    12,499,990 
      Wisconsin         6,591,086      250,000    13,322,451       20,163,537 
        Total        $354,117,209 $49,333,427    $210,989,807    $614,440,443 

Source: GAO analysis of regular, disaster, and dual enrollment grant funds
awarded between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2003.

The amounts shown include national emergency grant funds awarded during
program years 2000-2002. This includes all initial grant awards and
incremental payments made during this time, including incremental payments
made for grants initially awarded prior to July 1, 2000. For example,
Arizona and North Dakota each received an incremental payment for a
regular grant awarded under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA).

Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, and Wyoming did not receive any regular,
disaster, or dual enrollment national emergency grants during program
years 2000-2002.

                      Appendix III: Average Number of Days
                     Regular Grants Were Awarded, by State

                               Number of regular  Average number of days from 
                         State           grantsa    receipt of application to 
                                                                        award 
                       Alabama                 2 
                      Arkansas                 1 
                    California                 1 
                      Colorado                 1 
                   Connecticut                 6 
          District of Columbia                 1 
                       Florida                 1 
                       Georgia                 4 
                         Idaho                 4 
                      Illinois                 3 
                       Indiana                 2 
                          Iowa                16 
                        Kansas                 3 
                      Kentucky                 3 
                         Maine                13 
                      Maryland                 2 
                 Massachusetts                 9 
                      Michigan                 3                           85 
                     Minnesota                 3                          103 
                      Missouri                12                           99 
                       Montana                 5                           51 
                      Nebraska                 2                           40 
                        Nevada                 1                           79 
                 New Hampshire                 3                           78 
                    New Jersey                 3                          174 
                          Ohio                 4                           40 
                      Oklahoma                 3                          123 
                        Oregon                 6                           96 
                  Pennsylvania                 4                          109 
                  Rhode Island                 3                           32 
                South Carolina                 1                          122 
                  South Dakota                 3                           82 
                     Tennessee                 2                          116 
                         Texas                 3                          122 
                      Virginia                 2                          106 

Appendix III: Average Number of Days Regular Grants Were Awarded, by State

                          Number of regular       Average number of days from 
                 State              grantsa   receipt of application to award 
               Vermont                    1                                90 
             Wisconsin                    5 

Source: GAO analysis of regular grant funds awarded between July 1, 2000,
and June 30, 2003.

aThis represents the number of regular grants for which complete
information was available. There were a total of 14 regular grants for
which we did not have complete information.

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

  Staff Acknowledgments

            Joan Mahagan (617) 788-0521 Wayne Sylvia (617) 788-0524

Yunsian Tai made significant contributions to this report in all aspects
of the work. In addition, Angela Anderson collected financial and program
oversight information from Labor headquarters and regional offices; John
Smale, Stuart Kaufman, and William Bates assisted in designing and
analyzing the national survey; Barbara Johnson and Paula Bonin assisted in
data reliability assessments; Jessica Botsford and Richard Burkard
provided legal support; and Corinna Nicolaou provided writing assistance.

Related GAO Products

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve Quality of
Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. GAO-04-308.
Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004.

Workforce Training: Almost Half of States Fund Employment Placement and
Training through Employer Taxes and Most Coordinate with Federally Funded
Programs. GAO-04-282. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2004.

National Emergency Grants: Services to Dislocated Workers Hampered by
Delays in Grant Awards, but Labor Is Initiating Actions to Improve Grant
Award Process. GAO-04-222. Washington, D.C.: November 14, 2003.

Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on
State Allocations. GAO-03-1043. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2003.

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: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to
Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization.
GAO-03-884T. 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.

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.

Related GAO Products

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: Interim Report on Status of Spending and States'
Available Funds. GAO-02-1074. Washington, D.C.: September 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.

  GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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 e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.

Order by Mail or Phone 	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

To Report Fraud,	Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

  Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs 	U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***