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 [email protected] or [email protected]. 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: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (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, [email protected] (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. ***