    Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative
    Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting
    Requirements (27-MAY-05, GAO-05-539).

    In a period of significant budget constraints, it is more vital
    than ever for federal programs to have good performance
    information. The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 took a
    significant step in that direction by introducing greater
    accountability for employment and training programs than prior
    programs. WIA established performance measures to look at a broad
    array of participant outcomes such as job placement and
    retention, earnings, skill gains, and customer satisfaction. WIA
    also required 17 programs, funded by four different agencies, to
    centralize service delivery through a one-stop center system.
    More recently, as part of efforts to link program performance to
    the budget, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) introduced
    common performance measures--similar to some of the WIA
    measures--for most federally funded job training programs that
    share similar goals. The U.S. Department of Labor's (Labor)
    Employment and Training Administration (ETA) further defined the
    common measures for all programs it oversees and proposed a new,
    standardized reporting format, known as the ETA Management
    Information and Longitudinal Evaluation (EMILE) reporting system
    to facilitate reporting them. However, state workforce agencies
    and others raised substantial concerns about the timing and scope
    of the EMILE reporting system. Despite delaying EMILE, Labor
    recently took steps to move ahead with reporting changes for the
    common measures, requiring states to implement these changes by
    July 1, 2005. Given the importance of these issues and their
    potential impact on the quality of the performance data, Congress
    asked us to examine (1) states' concerns about implementing
    Labor's proposed EMILE reporting system and (2) the effect that
    the implementation of common measures and other new reporting
    changes might have on states' ability to collect data and report
    on WIA's performance.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-539
        ACCNO:   A25321
      TITLE:     Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider
    Alternative Approaches to Implement New Performance and Reporting
    Requirements
         DATE:   05/27/2005
      SUBJECT:   Data collection
    	     Employment assistance programs
    	     Federal/state relations
    	     Performance measures
    	     Program evaluation
    	     Reporting requirements
    	     Surveys

    ******************************************************************
    ** 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-05-539

    United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

                           Report to Congressional Requesters

    May 2005

    WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT

     Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches to Implement New Performance and
                                 Reporting Requirements

    GAO-05-539

    Contents

                                        Letter 1

    Appendix I Briefing Slides

    Appendix II Additional State Survey Data

    Appendix III	Comments from the Department of Labor 54 GAO Response 57

    Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO's Related Products

    Tables

    Table 1: Which States Have IT Systems that Collect Information on the WIA
    Title I-B Programs and also Currently Capture Program Information for
    Other U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) Employment and Training
    Administration Programs?

    Table 2: Which States Have IT Systems that Collect Information on the WIA
    Title I-B Programs and also Currently Capture Program Information for
    Other One-Stop Partner Programs?

    Table 3: Status of Statewide Systems to Collect Unique Identifiers For All
    Jobseekers and Employers Who Use the One-Stop System

    Table 4: From the time your state first began implementing changes to the
    IT system under WIA, about how long did it take your state to fully
    implement the IT system changes that were necessary to meet the federal
    requirements for the quarterly reports, annual report, and WIASRD
    (Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data)?

    Table 5: Compared to the effort your state invested in the transition from
    the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) to WIA, how

                                           38

                                         42 46

                                           48

    much effort do you anticipate investing in implementing

    EMILE, as proposed? 50 Table 6: About how long do you estimate it will
    take your state to

    fully implement the necessary changes for EMILE, as

    proporsed, once Labor's requirements are final? 52

    Abbreviations

    EMILE ETA Management Information and Longitudinal Evaluation
    ETA Employment and Training Administration
    IT information technology
    WIA Workforce Investment Act

    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 Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

    May 27, 2005

    The Honorable Michael B. Enzi
    Chairman
    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 and Workplace Safety
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
    United States Senate

    In a period of significant budget constraints, it is more vital than ever
    for
    federal programs to have good performance information. The Workforce
    Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 took a significant step in that direction by
    introducing greater accountability for employment and training programs
    than prior programs. WIA established performance measures to look at a
    broad array of participant outcomes such as job placement and retention,
    earnings, skill gains, and customer satisfaction. WIA also required 17
    programs, funded by four different agencies, to centralize service
    delivery
    through a one-stop center system. More recently, as part of efforts to
    link
    program performance to the budget, the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB) introduced common performance measures-similar to some of
    the WIA measures-for most federally funded job training programs that
    share similar goals. The U.S. Department of Labor's (Labor) Employment
    and Training Administration (ETA) further defined the common measures
    for all programs it oversees and proposed a new, standardized reporting
    format, known as the ETA Management Information and Longitudinal
    Evaluation (EMILE) reporting system to facilitate reporting them.
    However, state workforce agencies and others raised substantial concerns
    about the timing and scope of the EMILE reporting system. Despite
    delaying EMILE, Labor recently took steps to move ahead with reporting
    changes for the common measures, requiring states to implement these
    changes by July 1, 2005.

    Given the importance of these issues and their potential impact on the
    quality of the performance data, you asked us to examine (1) states'
    concerns about implementing Labor's proposed EMILE reporting system

    and (2) the effect that the implementation of common measures and other
    new reporting changes might have on states' ability to collect data and
    report on WIA's performance.

    To address these issues, we conducted a Web-based survey and received
    responses from 48 of the 50 states. We did not include Washington, D.C.
    and U.S. territories in our survey. In addition, we visited New York, West
    Virginia, California, Texas, and Wyoming, and two local areas in each
    state. We selected these states because they represent a range of
    information technology (IT) systems-statewide comprehensive systems versus
    local systems with a state reporting function, include single and multiple
    workforce areas, and are geographically diverse. To learn more about
    proposed reporting changes, we met with U.S. Department of Labor officials
    and reviewed legislation, federal guidance, and other documents relevant
    to WIA's reporting system. We also reviewed the official responses of six
    associations and 38 states to the July 2004 Federal Register Notice that
    introduced the EMILE reporting system. We conducted our work from June
    2004 through April 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government
    auditing standards.

    On April 21, 2005, we provided a briefing on the results of our work to
    your staff. This report formally conveys the information provided during
    that briefing, which is contained in appendix I. We also provided some
    additional state survey data in appendix II.

    In summary, we found that while many states supported streamlined
    reporting, 36 states indicated that implementing the EMILE system, as
    proposed, would be very burdensome. Most states indicated that launching
    EMILE would require as much or more effort than was required of them to
    meet WIA reporting requirements in 2000. Labor has underestimated the
    magnitude and type of changes EMILE would require and the resources states
    would need in order to implement it. Labor developed EMILE with limited
    consultation with state officials.

    While the use of the common measures could increase the comparability of
    outcome information across programs and provide a more complete picture of
    the one-stop system, states will face challenges in making the required
    changes. For example, states will be required to track all jobseekers who
    receive services at one-stop centers, although it is unclear how many
    states and local areas are prepared to do so. In addition, one of the
    common measures will replace the current WIA earnings measure for
    dislocated workers, which may be a disincentive for serving this
    population. Moreover, states have very little time to make the necessary

    changes before they must begin data collection and reporting using the new
    requirements. While Labor publicized its plans to adopt the common
    measures, states were notified only in late February that Labor planned to
    implement changes on July 1, 2005, and final guidance was not issued until
    April 15, 2005.

    In conclusion, Labor's initiatives to introduce common measures and a
    comprehensive reporting system could foster program integration and
    provide a better picture of WIA's reach, but Labor underestimated the
    cost, time, and effort required of states to make such changes. Ongoing
    consultation with states and pilot testing may have enhanced Labor's
    effort to move forward with EMILE. Labor has not provided guidance in a
    timely manner for states to implement the changes related to the common
    measures. Rushed implementation could negatively affect data quality and
    compromise the potential benefits of proposed changes. While some states
    have the capacity to collect and report data on all jobseekers, many
    others do not, and states and local areas need enough time to fully meet
    these requirements. Moreover, unless Labor ensures that states collect the
    data in a consistent manner, the information will not be comparable across
    states.

    To ensure states' ability to implement proposed reporting system changes,
    we recommend that Labor consider alternative approaches to reach the goals
    of EMILE and perform an assessment that considers the costs and benefits.
    To help states and local areas develop the capacity to track all
    jobseekers who use one-stop services in a consistent manner, Labor should
    use the first year as a test phase and work with states to identify
    promising practices in collecting and reporting this data, and provide
    technical assistance to states that do not have this capacity.

    We provided officials at the Department of Labor an opportunity to comment
    on a draft of this report. Labor agreed with our recommendation that it
    work with states in identifying promising practices to ensure that states
    and local areas track all jobseekers in a consistent manner. Labor did not
    respond to our recommendation that it consider alternative approaches to
    reach the goals of EMILE. In addition, Labor raised concerns about some of
    the material in the report. We believe these concerns do not require
    changes to the material. Labor's comments and a more detailed discussion
    of our response are in appendix III. Labor also provided technical
    comments, which we have incorporated in our report, as appropriate.

    We will send copies of this report to relevant congressional committees,
    the Secretary of Labor, and other interested parties. We will also make
    copies available to others upon request. The report will be available at
    no
    charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

    A list of related GAO products is included at the end of this report. If
    you
    or members of your staff have any questions about this report, please
    contact me at (202) 512-7215 or Dianne Blank at (202) 512-5654. You may
    also reach us by e-mail at nilsens@gao.gov or blankd@gao.gov. Other
    contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix IV.

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

                       Appendix II: Additional State Survey Data

    Table 1: Which States Have IT Systems that Collect Information on the WIA
    Title I-B Programs and also Currently Capture Program Information for
    Other U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) Employment and Training
    Administration Programs?

                      Page 38 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act
     Employment Trade Veterans'  National   Service Adjustment Employment Unemployment Emergency  State (Wagner-Peyser) Assistance Training Insurance Grants   Job Alaska     o  Alabama     o  Arkansas o  o  o  California     o  Colorado o o o  o  Connecticut o  o    Delaware o o o  o  Florida o  o  o  Georgia o o o  o  Hawaii o o o  o  Iowa     o  Idaho     o  Illinois  o   o  Indiana     o  Kansas o o o o o o Kentucky o o o o o  Louisiana o  o  o  Massachusetts o o o  o  Maine o o o o o  Michigan o o   o  Minnesota     o  Missouri o  o  o  Mississippi     o  Montana        North       o  North  o o o    Nebraska  o   o     New        o   New   o o o  o   New   o  o o o
                                                               and                                Name                             Program  Program          Corps                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Carolina        Dakota                           Hampshire        Jersey           Mexico

                      Senior   Employment
                               and
                    Community  training   Employment  Responsible
                               for
                                migrant   and        Reintegration   H-1B
    Welfare-to-Work  Service      and     Training   of            Technical
                                          for
     grant-funded   Employment seasonal     Native     Youthful     Skills      Total
                               farm                                Training       ETA
                                workers   Americans  Offender       Grants
        program      program                         Grants                  Programs

    o 2

                                        o   o  3

    o 4

    o 2

                                    o   o   o   o  8

    o 3

    o 5

                                      3  o   o  6

    o 5

    o 2

    o 2

    o 3

                                           1

    o   o   o   o  10

    o 6

    o 4

    o   o  6  o   o  7

    o 	4 1

    o 	4 1 0

    o   o  3

    o 4

    2  o   o  3  o   o  6

    4

    Employment Trade Veterans' National Service Adjustment Employment and
    Unemployment Emergency State Name (Wagner-Peyser) Assistance Training
    Program Insurance Program Grants Job Corps

              Nevada           o        o        o        o        o
             New York          o        o        o        o        o
               Ohio            o                                   o
             Oklahoma          o        o        o                 o
              Oregon                                               o
           Pennsylvania        o        o        o
           Rhode Island        o        o        o                 o
          South Carolina                                           o
           South Dakota        o        o        o                 o
            Tennessee          o        o        o                 o
              Texas            o        o                          o
               Utah            o        o        o        o        o
             Virginia                                              o
             Vermont                    o                          o
            Washington         o        o        o        o        o
            Wisconsin          o        o        o        o        o
          West Virginia        o        o        o                 o           o
             Wyoming           o        o        o

                    Senior   Employment             Responsible    H-1B
                             and
     Welfare-to-  community   training  Employment reintegration technical
                                for
                              migrant      and
         work      service      and      training   of youthful   skills      Total
     grant-funded employment  seasonal  for Native   offender    training       ETA
                                farm
    program     program    workers   Americans     grants      grants   programs

    o  6

    o  6

                                           2

    o  5

                                           1

    o  4

    o  5

                                           1

    o 5

                                     4  o   o  5 5

                                           1

                                           2

            o                        o                                          7
            o                        o                                          7
            o                        o                                          7
                                     o                        o                 5
                          Source: GAO state survey.

    Table 2: Which States Have IT Systems that Collect Information on the WIA
    Title I-B Programs and also Currently Capture Program Information for
    Other One-Stop Partner Programs?

    Vocational Vocational Rehabilitation Adult Education Education (Perkins
    State Name program and Literacy Act)

    Alaska

    Alabama

    Arkansas

    California

                                  Colorado  o   o   o

    Connecticut

    Delaware

    Florida

    Georgia

    Hawaii

    Iowa

    Idaho

    Illinois

    Indiana

                                   Kansas  o   o   o

    Kentucky

    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maine  o
    Michigan  o
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    Nebraska
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey  o
    New Mexico

                                     Temporary
        Community   HUD-administered Assistance Food Stamp
         Services    employment and  for Needy  Employment    Other         Total
          Block                                              One-stop     Partner
          Grant                       Families      and      Partners
                        training                 Training                Programs

                                           0

                                           0

                                           0

                                    0  o   o   o  6

                                       o   o  2 0

                                           0

                                           0

    o  1

                                           0

                                           0

                                           0

                                 0  o   o   o   o  7 0

    o  1

                                                                                0
                                                                                1
                                                                         o   o  3
                                                                         o   o  2
                                                                     o   o   o  3
                                                                                0
                                                                                0
                                                                                0

    o  	1 0 0

    o   o   o  	4 0

    Vocational Adult Rehabilitation Education and Vocational Education State
    Name program Literacy (Perkins Act)

    Nevada

    New York Ohio Oklahoma

    Oregon Pennsylvania

    Rhode Island

                               South Carolina  o   o   o

    South Dakota

                                      Tennessee  o

    Texas

    Utah Virginia

    Vermont

                                 Washington  o   o   o

    Wisconsin

    West Virginia

    Wyoming

         Community         HUD-         Temporary
         services      administered     Assistance      Food Stamp          Other
           block        employment      for Needy       Employment       One-Stop
           grant       and training      Families      and training      Partners

                                           0

                                           0

    o 1

    o  1

                                           0

    o 1

                                 0  o   o   o   o  8 0

    o  2

                                      o   o   o  3

                                     o   o   o  3 0

                                           0

    o  5

    o 1

                                           0

    0

    Source: GAO state survey.

    Table 3: Status of Statewide Systems to Collect Unique Identifiers For All
    Jobseekers and Employers Who Use the One-Stop System

                              State has a statewide       State has a statewide
                             system to collect unique    system to collect unique
                          identifiers for all jobseekers      identifiers for all
                                                                        employers
               State Name who use the one-stop system        who use the one-stop
                                                                           system
                   Alaska               o                           o
                  Alabama                                           o
                 Arkansas               o                           o

    California

                                    Colorado  o   o

                                   Connecticut  o   o

                                    Delaware  o   o

    Florida

    Georgia Indiana

                                          Hawaii        o                      o
                                            Iowa        o
                                           Idaho        o
                                        Illinois        o                      o

    Kansas  o   o

    Kentucky  o   o

    Louisiana  o   o
    Massachusetts  o   o
    Maine  o   o
    Michigan
    Minnesota  o
    Missouri  o   o
    Mississippi
    Montana
    North Carolina  o   o
    North Dakota
    Nebraska  o   o
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey  o   o
    New Mexico  o
    Nevada  o   o
    New York  o   o

                               State has a statewide      State has a statewide
                              system to collect unique   system to collect unique
                            identifiers for all               identifiers for all
                            jobseekers                                  employers
                 State Name who use the one-stop system      who use the one-stop
                                                                           system
                       Ohio                                         o
                   Oklahoma              o                          o
                     Oregon                                         o
               Pennsylvania              o                          o
               Rhode Island              o                          o

    South Carolina

                                  South Dakota  o   o

                                    Tennessee  o   o

    Texas West Virginia

                                             Utah       o                      o
                                         Virginia       o                      o
                                          Vermont       o                      o
                                       Washington                              o
                                        Wisconsin       o                      o

                                     Wyoming  o   o

    Source: GAO.

    Table 4: From the time your state first began implementing changes to the
    IT system under WIA, about how long did it take your state to fully
    implement the IT system changes that were necessary to meet the federal
    requirements for the quarterly reports, annual report, and WIASRD
    (Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data)?

    More than Less than 6 6 months to 1 year to 2 More than 2 More than months
    1 year years years to 3 years 3 years No response

                                 Alabama  o  Alaska  o

                               Arkansas  o  California  o

    Colorado  o

    Connecticut  o

    Delaware  o

                                       Florida  o

                                       Georgia  o

    Hawaii  o

    Idaho  o

    Illinois  o

                             Indiana  o  Iowa  o  Kansas  o

    Kentucky  o

                      Page 48 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act
    Louisiana  o    Maine    o  Massachusetts     o Michigan  o    Minnesota  o    Mississippi  o    Missouri o     Montana     o Nebraska  o    Nevada     o    New     o     New     o    New    o    New     o   North      o  North     o
                                                                                                                                                              Hampshire       Jersey       Mexico       York       Carolina       Dakota

    More than Less than 6 6 months to 1 year to 2 More than 2 More than months
    1 year years years to 3 years 3 years No response

                                        Ohio  o

                Oklahoma  o  Oregon  o  Pennsylvania  o  Rhode Island  o

    South Carolina  o

                                    South Dakota  o

                                      Tennessee  o

    Texas  o

                                  Utah  o  Vermont  o

    Virginia  o

                                     Washington  o

    West Virginia  o

                                      Wisconsin  o

    Wyoming  o

                                      Source: GAO.

    Table 5: Compared to the effort your state invested in the transition from
    the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) to WIA, how much effort do you
    anticipate investing in implementing EMILE, as proposed?

    Somewhat Much less Much greater greater effort About the same Somewhat
    less effort for effort for EMILE for EMILE effort effort for EMILE EMILE
    No response

                                       Alabama  o

    Alaska  o  Arkansas  o  California  o  Colorado  o  Connecticut  o  Delaware  o
                                       Florida  o

                                       Georgia  o

                                       Hawaii  o

           Idaho  o  Illinois  o  Indiana  o  Iowa  o  Kansas  o  Kentucky  o

                      Page 50 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act
    Louisiana     o  Maine    o   Massachusetts    o   Michigan o      Minnesota o      Mississippi  o     Missouri o      Montana   o    Nebraska    o   Nevada   o       New    o       New        o  New       o  New     o    North   o      North  o            o
                                                                                                                                                                        Hampshire        Jersey        Mexico        York        Carolina        Dakota        Ohio

    Somewhat Much less Much greater greater effort About the same Somewhat
    less effort for effort for EMILE for EMILE effort effort for EMILE EMILE
    No response

                Oklahoma  o  Oregon  o  Pennsylvania  o  Rhode Island  o

                                   South Carolina  o

    South Dakota  o

                      Tennessee  o  Texas  o  Utah  o  Vermont  o

                               Virginia  o  Washington  o

                                    West Virginia  o

    Wisconsin  o

                                       Wyoming  o

                                      Source: GAO.

    Table 6: About how long do you estimate it will take your state to fully
    implement the necessary changes for EMILE, as proposed, once Labor's
    requirements are final?

    Less than 6 6 months to More than 1 More than 2 More than months 1 year
    year to 2 years years to 3 years 3 years No response

                                       Alabama  o

                                 Alaska  o  Arkansas  o

    California  o

                              Colorado  o  Connecticut  o

                                Delaware  o  Florida  o

                                       Georgia  o

    Hawaii  o

                                        Idaho  o

    Illinois  o

                                       Indiana  o

                            Iowa  o  Kansas  o  Kentucky  o

                      Page 52 GAO-05-539 Workforce Investment Act
    Louisiana o     Maine   o   Massachusetts  o    Michigan  o    Minnesota   o   Mississippi     o Missouri     o Montana     o Nebraska  o    Nevada   o      New     o     New     o    New   o     New    o    North      o  North   o    Ohio  o              o
                                                                                                                                                              Hampshire       Jersey       Mexico       York       Carolina       Dakota                  Oklahoma

    Less than 6 6 months to More than 1 More than 2 More than months 1 year
    year to 2 years years to 3 years 3 years No response

    Oregon  o

    Pennsylvania  o

                                    Rhode Island  o

                           South Carolina  o  South Dakota  o

    Tennessee  o

                                        Texas  o

    Utah  o

    Vermont  o

                               Virginia  o  Washington  o

    West Virginia  o

    Wisconsin  o

                                       Wyoming  o

                                      Source: GAO.

    Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor

    GAO Response

    Labor agreed with our recommendation that it work with states in
    identifying promising practices to ensure that states and local areas
    track all jobseekers in a consistent manner. Labor did not respond to our
    recommendation that it consider alternative approaches to reach the goals
    of EMILE. However, Labor took issue with several statements throughout the
    briefing materials.

    Labor disagreed with our finding that it developed EMILE with limited
    consultation with states. Labor said it engaged in significant outreach
    efforts such as holding information sessions and participating in several
    conferences and online sessions to explain the proposed reporting system.
    Labor also identified over 160 comments it received to the July 16, 2004
    Federal Register Notice. However, the large number of concerns raised by
    the 38 states that responded to the notice suggests that the dialogue was
    insufficient to resolve concerns in the early development of the proposed
    EMILE reporting system. We continue to believe that Labor's efforts to
    implement a system such as EMILE could be enhanced by alternative
    approaches such as ongoing consultation, testing, and implementing changes
    in phases.

    Labor expressed concern that we did not clearly distinguish EMILE from the
    common measures, stating that, in their view, these are separate and
    independent actions. Yet, in the Federal Register Notice on EMILE, Labor
    clearly linked implementation of the common measures with EMILE, stating
    that the common measures would become effective with reporting system
    changes and EMILE would help standardize data collection by using the
    definitions of the common measures.

    Labor disagreed with our finding that it had not provided guidance in a
    timely manner, noting that the initial guidance on common measures was
    issued in December 2003. Yet the detailed instructions on reporting
    changes were not issued until a March 29, 2005 Federal Register Notice. In
    addition, states will need to provide some information not currently
    required or uniformly collected. As we discussed in our briefing
    materials, states told us that they would need time to make changes such
    as preparing new guidance and training local staff on reporting
    modifications. We continue to believe that rushed implementation without
    adequate time for states to retool may lead to data quality errors.

    In addition, Labor states that its reporting change to collect data on
    onestop customers who use self-services is a critical first step in
    addressing prior GAO concerns. We agree that collecting this information
    and the concepts of EMILE and the common measures are consistent with the
    type

    of comprehensive performance management system we have recommended for WIA
    and the one-stop system.

    Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO Contacts

    Staff Acknowledgments

    Dianne Blank, Assistant Director (202) 512-5654 Laura Heald,
    Analyst-in-Charge (202) 512-8701

    Melinda Cordero, Adam Roye, and Leslie Sarapu made significant
    contributions to all phases of the effort. Carolyn Boyce made significant
    contributions in the design and administration of the surveys. In
    addition, Jessica Botsford provided legal support, Avrum Ashery and Muriel
    Coley provided graphic design assistance, and Linda Lambert and Eric Trout
    also provided key technical assistance.

    GAO's Related Products

    Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies
    to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO-04-657.
    Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.

    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 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.

    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.

    Performance and Accountability Series. Major Management Challenges and
    Program Risks: Department of Labor. GAO-03-106. Washington, D.C.: January
    2003.

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

    Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to
    Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness. GAO-02-275.
    Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.

    GAO's Mission

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

    The Government Accountability 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 GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
    released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
    GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
    www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

    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. Government Accountability 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:

    Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.govFederal Programs Automated answering system: (800)
    424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202)
    512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
    NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs 	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202)
    512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548

                               PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
    *** End of document. ***