Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to
Facilitate Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but
These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient (14-DEC-04, GAO-05-54).
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 includes provisions
intended to ensure that people with disabilities have equal
opportunity to participate in and benefit from the programs and
activities offered through one-stop career centers (one-stops).
But little is known, and questions have been raised, about how
well this system is working for persons with disabilities. This
report examines (1) what the Department of Labor (Labor), states,
and the one-stops have done to facilitate comprehensive access to
the WIA one-stop system; (2) the various relationships that the
one-stops have established with disability-related agencies to
provide services to persons with disabilities; (3) what Labor has
done to ensure that the one-stops are meeting the comprehensive
access requirements, and the factors that have affected efforts
to ensure compliance; and (4) what is known about the employment
outcomes of persons with disabilities who use the one-stop
system.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-05-54
ACCNO: A14397
TITLE: Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions
to Facilitate Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities,
but These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient
DATE: 12/14/2004
SUBJECT: Aid for the disabled
Employment of the disabled
Employment or training programs
Performance measures
Persons with disabilities
Program evaluation
Workfare
Intergovernmental relations
Noncompliance
Federal aid programs
Locally administered programs
State-administered programs
California
Illinois
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Mexico
Tennessee
Dept. of Education Vocational
Rehabilitation Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-54
* Results in Brief
* Background
* Labor, Local Areas, and One-Stops Have Made Various Efforts and
Degrees \of Progress in Facilitating Access
* Federal Grants Have Provided Funding to Facilitate One-Stop
Accessibilit\y
* Local Areas and One-Stops Have Made對 Efforts to Fa
* One-Stops and Disability Agencies Have Established Various
Relationships\ to Serve Persons with Disabilities
* Labor Has Taken Actions to Ensure That One-Stops Comply with Access
Requ\irements, but These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient
* Information on Employment Outcomes Is Limited
* Conclusions
* Recommendation
* Agency Comments
* Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Labor
* Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
* GAO Contacts
* Staff Acknowledgments
* Related GAO Products
* Order by Mail or Phone
United States Government Accountability Office
Report to Congressional Requesters
GAO
December 2004
WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate Access to One-Stops for Persons
with Disabilities, but These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient
GAO-05-54
WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate Access to One-Stops for
Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient
What GAO Found
Labor has awarded grants to facilitate comprehensive access, which is
defined in this report as providing people with disabilities the equal
opportunity to participate in and benefit from the programs, activities,
and/or employment offered by the WIA one-stop system. States and local
areas have used these grants for a range of efforts, including increasing
staff capacity to provide services to persons with disabilities. During
our site visits to 18 local areas and one-stops, we found that officials
at most sites were working to implement architectural access requirements.
Moreover, local areas and one-stops varied in the degree to which they had
addressed other areas of comprehensive access. For example, a few sites
had only begun to acquire assistive technology devices; other sites had
assistive technology and had trained some or all of their staff in how to
use it.
One-stops have established various relationships to provide services to
persons with disabilities. The structure of the one-stops' relationships
with state vocational rehabilitation (VR) programs varied, as did the
extent to which they have formed relationships with disability-related
service providers other than VR. A few local areas and one-stops primarily
formed relationships with VR, while others had also formed relationships
with community-based disability organizations.
Although Labor has taken several actions to ensure comprehensive access to
one-stops, these efforts may not be sufficient. Labor's Employment and
Training Administration (ETA), Civil Rights Center (CRC), and Office of
Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) have issued guidance and assistance on
the regulatory requirements. CRC also has conducted on-site reviews at
local areas and one-stops in two large metropolitan areas in two states.
In both areas, CRC identified instances of noncompliance with these
requirements. Reviews in two other states will be completed during fiscal
year 2005, but Labor has not developed a long-range plan for how it will
carry out its oversight and enforcement responsibilities beyond 2005. To
date, CRC's monitoring and enforcement efforts account for less than 2
percent of the total number of local areas and one-stops nationwide. The
CRC Director stated that she had not yet determined whether CRC would
conduct additional on-site reviews.
The information that Labor publishes on employment outcomes for people
with disabilities is limited for a variety of reasons. Disclosure about
disability status is voluntary, thus the information about employment
outcomes may be misleading. The collection of information on the
employment outcomes of WIA participants is limited to those who are
registered for services, and one-stops are not required to register
customers who participate in self-service or informational activities. The
performance measurement system may result in customers being denied
services because local areas may be reluctant to provide WIA-funded
services to job seekers who may be less likely to find employment.
United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 5 Background 8 Labor, Local Areas, and One-Stops Have
Made Various Efforts and
Degrees of Progress in Facilitating Access 15 One-Stops and Disability
Agencies Have Established Various
Relationships to Serve Persons with Disabilities 26 Labor Has Taken
Actions to Ensure That One-Stops Comply with
Access Requirements, but These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient 28
Information on Employment Outcomes Is Limited 31 Conclusions 33
Recommendation 34 Agency Comments 34
Appendix I Comments from the Department of Labor
Appendix II GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 51
GAO Contacts 51 Staff Acknowledgments 51
GAO's Related Products
Tables
Table 1: WIA's Mandatory One-Stop Partner Programs and Related Federal
Agencies 9 Table 2: Work Incentive Grants: 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004 16
Table 3: Selected Types of Auxiliary Aids and Services 20 Table 4:
Co-location Status of VR Staff in the One-Stops We Visited 26
Figure
Figure 1: GAO Site Visits to Local Areas and One-Stop Centers
Page i GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Abbreviations
ADAAG Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
for Buildings and Facilities
CRC Civil Rights Center
ETA Employment and Training Administration
EO equal opportunity
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
JTPA Job Training Partnership Act
MOA Methods of Administration
ODEP Office of Disability Employment Policy
SSA Social Security Administration
TDD telecommunications device for the deaf
TTY text telephone
UFAS Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards
VR Vocational Rehabilitation
WIA Workforce Investment Act
WIG Work Incentive Grant
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
December 14, 2004
The Honorable Judd Gregg, Chairman Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions United States Senate
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy Ranking Minority Member Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions United States Senate
The Honorable Tom Harkin United States Senate
The ability to engage in productive employment is the cornerstone of the
American workforce system, and the programs and services provided through
the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 are intended for persons with
and without disabilities. WIA unifies previously fragmented employment and
training programs and creates a more comprehensive workforce investment
system by bringing together over $15 billion of federally funded programs
into a single service delivery system-the onestop center system. WIA
requires about 17 programs to provide services through the one-stop
system, including the Department of Education's Vocational Rehabilitation
(VR) program, which provides services to eligible individuals with
disabilities. The Department of Labor (Labor) is responsible for providing
general leadership and guidance to the one-stop system. Within Labor, the
Civil Rights Center (CRC) and the Employment and Training Administration
(ETA) each have a role in ensuring that people with disabilities can
participate in and benefit from the programs and services provided through
the one-stop system. Additionally, Labor's Office of Disability Employment
Policy (ODEP) has a role in increasing employment opportunities for people
with disabilities.
Section 188 of WIA, among other things, prohibits discrimination on the
basis of disability with respect to the programs funded or otherwise
financially assisted under WIA. Labor's regulations implementing WIA
Section 188 include specific provisions intended to ensure that persons
with mobility, mental health, hearing, vision, speech, cognitive, or other
impairments have equal opportunity to participate in or be employed by the
programs and activities offered through the one-stop system. These
regulations encompass provisions that oblige recipients of WIA financial
assistance to take positive actions to provide people with disabilities
the equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from the programs,
activities, and/or employment offered by the one-stop system. For the
purpose of this report, we use the term comprehensive access when
referring to these requirements. These requirements include actions such
as providing architectural access, program accessibility, reasonable
accommodations or modifications, service delivery in integrated settings,
and effective communication. Labor's regulations also include provisions
prohibiting covered recipients of federal financial assistance from taking
discriminatory actions that exclude people with disabilities from
participating in the programs, activities, or employment offered by the
one-stop career center system, and provisions requiring recipients to
establish the administrative structure that CRC views as necessary in
order to ensure nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for members of all
groups protected by Section 188 of WIA.
Despite the requirements contained in these provisions, little is known
about how well the one-stop system is working for people with
disabilities. As a result, you asked us to examine (1) what Labor, states,
and the onestop centers have done to facilitate comprehensive access to
the WIA onestop system; (2) the various relationships that the one-stop
centers have established with disability-related agencies to provide
services to persons with disabilities; (3) what Labor has done to ensure
that the one-stop centers are meeting the comprehensive access
requirements, and the factors that have affected efforts to ensure
compliance; and (4) what is known about the employment outcomes of persons
with disabilities who use the one-stop system.
To address these issues, we interviewed officials at Labor, and we
conducted document reviews of Labor's Work Incentive Grants (WIG) and the
Disability Program Navigator (Navigator) grants. 1 The Work Incentive
Grants are designed to enhance the employment and career advancement of
people with disabilities. The Navigator grants are intended to increase
employment and self-sufficiency of people with disabilities. We used
information obtained from these grants to help select which states, local
The WIG and Navigator grants do not represent all of Labor's grants for
disability-related activities. For example, the Office of Disability
Employment Policy (ODEP) also provides grants for serving customers with
disabilities in the WIA one-stop system, including grants that focus on
providing customized employment strategies to create opportunities for
individuals with disabilities and improving school-to-work transition
outcomes for youth with disabilities.
Page 2 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
areas, and full-service one-stop career centers (one-stops) to visit. We
selected these states on the basis of geographical dispersion, as well as
whether they received one or more types of grants, if any. We conducted
site visits to six states-California, Illinois, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, New Mexico, and Tennessee. We visited three local workforce
investment areas (local areas) and associated one-stop centers in each of
these states. After discussions with WIA officials within the six states,
we selected the local areas and one-stop centers to obtain both urban and
suburban centers and, where possible, one-stop centers in small towns or
rural areas. Figure 1 shows the 18 locations we visited. At the local
workforce investment area and one-stop centers, we interviewed WIA
officials, onestop staff, and officials from organizations representing
people with disabilities about issues and practices for providing
programs, services, and activities to individuals with disabilities.
Additionally, we reviewed relevant documents from Labor, as well as the
WIA statute and regulations and other relevant statutory and regulatory
provisions.
Figure 1: GAO Site Visits to Local Areas and One-Stop Centers
While WIA and its implementing regulations require that persons with
disabilities can use the one-stop facilities and participate in and
benefit from the system's programs, activities, and services, we did not
assess the extent to which the approximately 1,900 one-stops, located in
about 600 local areas nationwide, meet the comprehensive access
requirements. Determining whether a particular site meets architectural
access standards is fairly straightforward, but this is not the case with
determining whether other comprehensive access requirements have been met.
While many of the elements of these requirements, such as provision
Results in Brief
of assistive technology devices, are described in existing regulations,
the regulations allow one-stops to use a variety of methods to meet the
requirements. Because there is no one list of methods that covers all
paths to comprehensive accessibility, it is a complex and
resource-intensive task to determine whether the comprehensive access
requirements have been met. Determining whether a single one-stop center
is in compliance with these requirements requires both on-site
observations of the facility and its equipment, as well as extensive
document reviews and interviews with one-stop staff. Determining whether
one-stops are in compliance with comprehensive access requirements on a
nationwide basis was beyond the scope of this study.
We conducted our work between September 2003 and October 2004 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Labor has awarded grants to facilitate comprehensive access to employment
and training programs for persons with disabilities, and local areas and
one-stop centers have also made numerous efforts, as well as various
degrees of progress, in facilitating comprehensive access to their
programs and services. Specifically, Labor's Employment and Training
Administration has awarded states and local entities over 100 grants
totaling $80 million for disability-related activities, such as enhancing
comprehensive access to the one-stops. States and local areas have used
these grants for a range of efforts, including assessing one-stop
architectural accessibility, acquiring assistive technology devices, and
increasing staff capacity to provide services to persons with
disabilities. During our site visits to 18 local areas and their
one-stops, we found that officials in most sites were working to implement
architectural access requirements. Some of these officials told us that
they had made at least some changes to improve architectural access. For
example, some changes included installing signage and electric door
openers. However, we found that the local areas and one-stops we visited
varied in the degree to which they had addressed other comprehensive
access concerns. For example, a few sites had only begun to acquire
assistive technology devices, while other sites had assistive technology
devices and had trained some or all of their staff in how to use them.
One-stops, VR, and other disability-related agencies in the community have
established various relationships to provide services to persons with
disabilities. From our site visits, we found that the structure of the
onestop centers' relationships with VR varied, particularly in terms of
whether co-location was occurring. While most of the one-stops we visited
had VR staff on-site at least part of the time, four of the sites we
visited had no onsite VR staff. Officials from the sites at which full- or
part-time co-location of VR staff was taking place said that co-location
was beneficial because, among other reasons, it helped the one-stop staff
provide faster and less fragmented services to persons with disabilities.
For those locations at which VR was not on-site, officials told us that
there were a variety of reasons for this, such as a lack of space in the
one-stop. The one-stop centers we visited also varied in terms of the
extent to which they formed relationships with disability-related service
providers other than VR. In a few cases, local areas and one-stops
primarily formed relationships with VR. However, other local areas and
one-stops we visited had also formed relationships with one or more
disability-related organizations in the community, such as independent
living centers, mental health agencies, and cognitive/developmental
disability agencies. Officials from local areas and their one-stops, as
well as those from VR and community disability agencies, cited a range of
benefits to being able to refer their customers to one another for
services, when it was appropriate to do so. For example, some local area
and one-stop officials said the one-stop's relationship with VR allowed
the two agencies to combine their resources to maximize the services they
can provide to their customers.
Labor has taken several actions to ensure comprehensive access to onestops
by persons with disabilities, but these efforts may not be sufficient. For
instance, Labor has not only funded grants, it has also provided training
in ways to facilitate comprehensive access in the one-stop centers.
Further, within Labor, CRC, along with ETA and ODEP, has provided guidance
and assistance to one-stops on accommodations and other comprehensive
access requirements. In addition, CRC has responsibility for interpreting,
monitoring, and enforcing WIA's statutory and regulatory
nondiscrimination, comprehensive access, and administrative provisions.
One key method Labor uses to ensure adherence to these provisions has been
to require that each state's governor sign a plan, known as the Methods of
Administration (MOA), that describes the policies, procedures, and systems
that each state has established to ensure adherence with WIA's statutory
and regulatory requirements. In addition, in 2003, CRC completed its first
phase of on-site reviews at local workforce areas and one-stops in two
large metropolitan areas in two states, Miami/Dade County, Florida, and
New York City, New York. In both metropolitan areas it reviewed, CRC
identified instances of noncompliance with WIA's comprehensive access and
other requirements, including the existence of barriers limiting services
to persons with disabilities. On the basis of its findings, CRC required
the two states to provide it with written responses of the corrective
actions they planned to make. Further, in May 2004, the CRC Director
requested that all states complete, for themselves and their largest local
area, a self-assessment tool to assess compliance with the requirements of
WIA Section 188 and its implementing regulations. CRC anticipates using
the information provided by the on-site reviews and selfassessments to
identify exemplary practices as well as areas needing improvement.
Although Labor has taken actions to address the comprehensive access and
other requirements for persons with disabilities, these efforts may not be
sufficient to ensure one-stop system compliance. For instance, although
CRC plans to complete on-site reviews in two other large metropolitan
areas in two states during fiscal year 2005, it has not developed a
long-range plan that describes how it will carry out its oversight and
enforcement responsibilities beyond 2005. Currently, the CRC reviews that
have been completed, or are in process, represent less than 2 percent of
the local areas and one-stop centers nationwide. At the time of our
review, the CRC Director said that she had not yet determined whether CRC
would conduct additional on-site reviews.
Information about the employment outcomes of persons with disabilities is
limited by the extent to which disability data are collected and overall
data collection methods under WIA. Although Labor publishes some
information on employment outcomes for people with disabilities in areas
such as job placement, employment retention, earnings change, and skill
attainment for the WIA-funded programs, this information is limited for
several reasons. One reason is that the information Labor publishes on the
employment outcomes of persons with disabilities is limited to the
subpopulation of persons with disabilities who disclose their disability
status, and therefore the employment outcomes may be misleading for the
total population of persons with disabilities receiving services through
WIA. Labor has issued guidance stating that one-stops must inquire about
disability status from job seekers upon registration for services. Such
inquiries must be asked of all job seekers, but an individual's decision
to disclose his or her disability status must be completely voluntary.
Further, the collection of employment outcome information on WIA
participants, including information on individuals with disabilities, is
limited to those individuals who are registered for services. Current law
does not require that one-stops register job seekers who receive services
that are selfservice and informational in nature, and thus they are not
included in the performance measures. Finally, the performance measurement
system developed under WIA may result in the denial of services to some
customers because performance levels are tied to incentives and sanctions
depending on whether states meet these levels. Consequently, local areas
may be reluctant to provide WIA-funded services to job seekers, including
persons with disabilities, in situations in which the persons may be
unlikely to find employment or experience an increase in earnings when
placed in jobs. In a prior report, we recommended that Labor develop a
systematic method to account for different populations and local economic
conditions when negotiating performance levels. 2 Labor agreed with the
importance of taking economic conditions and characteristics of the
population into account when setting performance expectations and has
commissioned a study to address this issue.
To improve comprehensive access for persons with disabilities to the
onestop system, we recommend that Labor develop and implement a longterm
plan for ensuring that the one-stop system complies with the comprehensive
access requirements for persons with disabilities. In developing such a
strategy, Labor should utilize the expertise of CRC, ETA, and ODEP staff.
In commenting on the draft of this report, Labor generally agreed with our
recommendation and said that even more could be done to ensure
comprehensive access within the one-stop system.
The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 requires states and localities to
bring together about 17 federally funded employment and training services
into a single system-the one-stop system. Funded through four federal
agencies, these programs, also known as the mandatory partner programs (or
more simply, mandatory partners), 3 are to provide services through a
statewide network of one-stop career centers. (See table 1.)
2
GAO, 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).
3
Co-location of the mandatory partners at the one-stop center is not
required. Labor has stated that under WIA, one-stop operations can range
from coordination, co-location, and integration.
Page 8 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Table 1: WIA's Mandatory One-Stop Partner Programs and Related Federal
Agencies
Federal Agency Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program
Department of Labora WIA Adult
WIA Dislocated Worker
WIA Youth
Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser)
Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs
Veterans' Employment and Training Programs
Unemployment Insurance
Job Corps
Welfare-to-Work Grant-Funded Programs
Senior Community Service Employment Program
Employment and Training for Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers
Employment and Training for Native Americans
Department of Education Vocational Rehabilitation Program
Adult Education and Literacy
Vocational Education (Perkins Act)
Department of Health and Community Services Block Grant Human Services
Department of Housing and HUD-administered Employment and Training Urban
Development (HUD)
Source: GAO-04-657.
a
Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA), in collaboration
with the partner programs, provides general leadership and guidance to the
one-stop system.
Three of these 17 programs, which were created and funded by Title I of
WIA to provide services to adults, dislocated workers, and youth, replace
those previously funded under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). The
Department of Labor distributes funds for these three programs to the
states, and the states in turn distribute funds to designated local areas
within the states based on formulas prescribed by WIA. WIA also
established performance measures that states and localities must track in
order to demonstrate the programs' effectiveness. The performance measures
primarily focus on entered employment rates, employment retention rates,
earnings changes, and credential rates. 4
WIA programs provide for three levels of services for adults and
dislocated workers: core, intensive, and training. Core services include
basic services such as job search and labor market information. These
activities may be self-service or may require some staff assistance.
Intensive services include such activities as comprehensive assessment and
case management, which require greater staff involvement. Training
services include such activities as occupational skills training or
on-the-job training.
WIA requires the establishment of workforce investment boards at the state
level and in local areas. The state boards are responsible for a number of
functions, including the development and improvement of the statewide
workforce investment system and the designation of local areas. The state
board assists in the preparation of the state plan and the annual report,
both of which are submitted to the Secretary of Labor. The local workforce
investment board sets policy for the local area, and its specific duties
include developing a comprehensive 5-year local plan and selecting
one-stop operators.
WIA contains a number of provisions to ensure that individuals with
disabilities are adequately served. The most important of these provisions
is Section 188, which prohibits any program or activity funded or
otherwise financially assisted in whole or part under WIA from
discriminating on the basis of disability as well as race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, age, or political affiliation or belief. 5
4
For more information on WIA's performance measures, see GAO-04-657 and
GAO, 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).
5
For WIA beneficiaries only, Section 188 also prohibits discrimination on
the basis of an individual's status as a citizen or national of the United
States, or as an individual lawfully authorized to work in the United
States, or on the basis of participation in any WIA Title I financially
assisted program or activity.
To help states and local areas implement the Section 188 provisions, the
Department of Labor issued interim final regulations in November 1999. 6
These regulations, which have the force of law, describe requirements for
the recipients of financial assistance under WIA Title I, and for programs
and activities operated by the one-stop partners as part of the one-stop
system. 7 The regulations also identify how recipients will be held
accountable for ensuring nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for
individuals with disabilities.
The WIA Section 188 regulations contain certain provisions that prohibit
recipients of WIA financial assistance from taking certain discriminatory
actions. For example, recipients must not:
o provide significant assistance to a person or entity that
discriminates in providing any aid, benefits, services, or training to
registrants, applicants, or participants;
o make a selection for the site or location of a facility that has a
discriminatory effect; or
o impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen
out individuals with disabilities, unless such criteria are necessary
for the provision of the aid, benefit, service, training, program, or
activity being offered.
Further, WIA Section 188 regulations contain provisions that oblige
recipients to take certain positive actions to provide comprehensive
access to WIA programs and services. For example, these regulations
require some recipients of WIA financial assistance-those who are in
facilities or parts of facilities that are constructed or altered on their
behalf-to make those facilities architecturally accessible. In contrast,
recipients of WIA financial assistance who are in unaltered existing
facilities are not necessarily required to make those facilities
6
See 64 Fed. Reg. 61692. These regulations are found at 29 CFR Part 37 and
incorporate, by reference, certain portions of the regulations
implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
pertaining to employment practices and employment-related training,
architectural and program accessibility and reasonable accommodation.
7
WIA Section 188 regulations apply to programs and activities that are
conducted as part of the one-stop system and operated by one-stop
partners, regardless of the source of the financial assistance for such
programs and activities.
architecturally accessible, but are subject to other requirements for
accessibility, known as program access, which specify that a recipient
must operate each service, program, or activity so that it, when viewed in
its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities. Recipients of WIA financial assistance do not have to make
each of their existing facilities or every part of an existing facility
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, and can satisfy
the accessibility requirements for existing facilities by redesigning
equipment, reassigning services to accessible buildings, assigning aides
to beneficiaries, and providing home visits, among other options.
As part of providing comprehensive access, WIA Section 188 regulations
require recipients of WIA financial assistance to take a number of
additional actions when administering their programs or activities. Under
these provisions, recipients must:
o take steps to ensure that communications with individuals with
disabilities are as effective as communications with others, including
providing appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary;
o provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with
disabilities who are applicants, registrants, or eligible
applicants/registrants for, or participants in, employees of, or
applicants for, employment with their programs and activities, unless
providing the accommodation would cause undue hardship; 8
o make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures,
unless making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature
of the service, program, or activity;
o provide the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of
qualified individuals with disabilities; and
In the one-stop context, the term reasonable accommodation can include
making existing facilities accessible; restructuring a program, service,
or training, or the way in which it is provided; part-time or modified
training schedules; making appropriate adjustments or modifications to
examinations, training materials, or policies; acquiring or modifying
equipment and devices; and providing qualified readers and interpreters,
among other possible actions. One-stops and other recipients are required
to make a requested accommodation unless providing it would create an
undue hardship for them, which is defined as "significant difficulty or
expense," when considered in light of a list of specified factors. The WIA
Section 188 regulations also require one-stops to make reasonable
modifications to their policies, practices, or procedures for persons with
disabilities unless making the modification would fundamentally alter the
nature of the program or activity.
* take appropriate steps, such as advertising and marketing, to
ensure that they are providing universal access to their WIA
financially assisted programs and activities.
* The regulations also require recipients of WIA financial assistance
to establish an administrative structure so that they ensure
compliance with WIA's nondiscrimination and equal opportunity
provisions. Each recipient, except small recipients 9 and service
providers, must designate an equal opportunity (EO) officer who is
responsible for ensuring that the recipient complies with Section
188 regulations. EO officers' responsibilities include:
o monitoring and investigating activities by recipients of WIA financial
assistance to ensure that they do not violate WIA Section 188
regulations,
o reviewing written policies to ensure that those policies are
nondiscriminatory, and
o developing and publishing the recipient's procedures for processing
discrimination complaints.
Recipients of WIA financial assistance must also provide written
notification that they do not discriminate on the basis of disability or
on other prohibited bases. This notification must be placed prominently in
the facility and distributed through other means. In addition, recipients
of WIA financial assistance must collect and maintain data necessary to
allow Labor to determine whether the recipient is complying with Section
188 of WIA and the implementing regulations. The Director of Labor's Civil
Rights Center determines which data are necessary.
Under WIA Section 188 regulations, the governor of each state is
responsible for, among other things:
o oversight of all WIA financially assisted state programs,
o ensuring compliance with WIA Section 188 and its implementing
regulations, and
A small recipient is one that serves a total of fewer than 15
beneficiaries during a grant year and employs fewer than 15 employees on
any given day in that year.
Page 13 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
o negotiating with recipients to secure voluntary compliance when
noncompliance is found.
Moreover, both the Governor and the recipient of WIA financial assistance
are liable for all violations of Section 188 unless the Governor has,
among other things, established, signed, and adhered to an MOA. 10 The MOA
must be in writing and describe how the state programs and recipients of
WIA financial assistance have satisfied the requirements of certain
regulatory provisions, including those regarding people with disabilities.
In addition, the Director of Labor's CRC has oversight responsibilities
under the Section 188 regulations, which include:
o conducting compliance reviews,
o reviewing the activities of a governor, including the adequacy of the
MOA, and
o investigating and resolving complaints alleging violations of Section
188.
As part of its oversight responsibility, CRC, with assistance from ETA and
ODEP, issued a compliance checklist on July 25, 2003, to ensure
nondiscrimination and equal opportunity to persons with disabilities
participating in WIA programs and activities. This checklist, officially
known as the WIA Section 188 Disability Checklist, 11 identifies the
regulations implementing Section 188 of WIA, including portions of the
regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and covers
requirements applicable to local area grant recipients regarding the
operation of their programs and activities. The checklist is based on the
elements required by the MOA and includes lists of questions for each
element of the MOA. For some of the elements, the questions are followed
by examples of concrete actions that can be taken to ensure compliance
with Section 188 requirements. The appendix to the Checklist also
In order to be exempt from liability for Section 188 violations, the
governor must also enter into a written contract with the recipient
outlining the recipient's obligations under Section 188, act with due
diligence to monitor the recipient's compliance with those provisions, and
take prompt and appropriate corrective action to affect compliance.
11The WIA Section 188 Checklist is located at
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/crc/section188.htm.
Page 14 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Labor, Local Areas, and One-Stops Have Made Various Efforts and Degrees of
Progress in Facilitating Access
includes additional examples of policies, procedures, and other steps that local
area grant recipients can take to ensure compliance with Section 188.
Labor has awarded grants to facilitate comprehensive access to employment
and training programs for persons with disabilities, and local areas and
one-stop centers have also made numerous efforts, as well as various
degrees of progress, in facilitating comprehensive access to their
programs and services. Specifically, ETA has awarded over 100 grants to
states and local entities for disability-related activities, such as
enhancing comprehensive access to the one-stops. States and local areas
have used these grants for a range of efforts, including assessing
one-stop architectural accessibility, acquiring assistive technology
devices, and increasing staff capacity to provide services to persons with
disabilities.
Federal Grants Have Provided Funding to Facilitate One-Stop Accessibility
Between 2000 and 2004, ETA awarded state and local entities a total of
approximately $65 million in competitive Work Incentive Grants in order to
enhance one-stops' capacity to provide programs and services to persons
with disabilities, which included improving one-stop accessibility. ETA
awarded 113 grants in four rounds between 2000 and 2004. (See table 2.)
Table 2: Work Incentive Grants: 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004
Total
Work Incentive number Total amount of
of
Grants grants grants States in which grants were
awarded awardeda awardedb
First round Alaska, California, Florida,
(2000) 23 $20 million Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana,
Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Missouri, Montana, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,
Washington
Second round (2002) 23 $20 million California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Missouri, New York,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon,
South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin
Third round (2003) 42 $17 million Arizona, Arkansas, California, DC,
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Washington, West Virginia
Fourth round (2004) 25 $8 million Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Connecticut, Florida, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maine, Michigan,
Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,
Washington
Total 113c $65 million
Source: GAO analysis of Labor's Work Incentive Grant information.
aThe Work Incentive Grants are funded through Labor's annual
appropriation.
b
Grants could either be statewide in scope, meaning that they covered all
local areas throughout the state, or local, meaning that they covered a
designated region within a state (such as a specific local area). Although
we are classifying grants by their state affiliation, this does not
necessarily indicate that all local areas throughout the state benefited
from the funds.
cIn the first and second rounds, only one grant was awarded within each
state that received a grant. In the third and fourth rounds, more than one
grant was awarded within some states.
On the basis of its experience administering the first two rounds of
grants, ETA has targeted its specific grant objectives-and, therefore, its
resources-to meet the emerging needs that states, local areas, and
onestops have identified in providing programs and services to persons
with disabilities. ETA's objectives for the early rounds of grants were
relatively broad, and as a result, grantees were permitted to use the
funds to undertake a range of activities, including:
o assessing one-stops' architectural accessibility;
o acquiring assistive technology devices;
o conducting outreach to the disability community;
o linking and coordinating with community disability-related agencies,
such as community mental health agencies and independent living
centers;
o training existing one-stop staff on disability issues; and
o making available staff who have the experience, knowledge, and skills
necessary to address a broad range of disability-related issues.
By the third round of grants, in 2003, ETA had begun to focus its
priorities more narrowly-though not exclusively-on increasing the capacity
of one-stop staff to provide services to persons with disabilities.
According to the third round grant notice, previous grantees had found
that building staff capacity was successful in improving overall service
delivery in their one-stops. ETA officials said that although they believe
that building staff capacity will enhance one-stops' progress toward
making their services available to persons with disabilities, they
recognize that some one-stops may also still need to address other issues,
such as meeting the architectural access requirements. In addition to
targeting their grant objectives, ETA officials said they plan to change
the process by which they award grants. ETA used a competitive process to
award all four rounds of grants, and as a result, according to ETA
officials, some states or local areas that needed grants may not have
received them. 12 ETA officials said they plan to use a different process
in the future, which would allow them to target funding toward specific
areas, such as states that did not receive grants in the first four rounds
and/or states where they would like to intensify current grant activities.
ETA, in conjunction with the Social Security Administration (SSA), which
administers employment support programs for its disability beneficiaries,
has provided approximately $24 million to fund a demonstration project
focused on the establishment and training of one-stop Disability Program
Navigators. 13 The Navigators' role is to address the needs of persons
with disabilities seeking to use the one-stop system. Since July 2003,
Navigator
12
Through this competitive process, an ETA technical review panel chose
grantees by evaluating their applications against specified criteria (such
as a statement of need). ETA officials explained that some applicants,
such as those who were less adept at writing applications that met
technical review standards, may not have received grants even though they
needed them.
13
Of the $24 million in funds, Labor contributed approximately $15 million
and SSA contributed $9 million.
Local Areas and One-Stops Have Made Efforts to Facilitate Access to the
One-Stops' Services, but Progress Has Varied
grants have been awarded in a total of 17 states. 14 At the time of our
review, this initiative had led to 221 Disability Program Navigators
working in or with one-stops in those states. As designed by ETA and SSA,
in collaboration with ODEP, Navigators are to provide expertise and serve
as a resource to one-stops as well as persons with disabilities. ETA and
SSA expected that Navigators would, in part, carry out many of the same
types of accessibility-related activities that were funded under the
initial Work Incentive Grants. The third and fourth rounds of the Work
Incentive Grants have led to the hiring of staff who can perform functions
similar to those of a Navigator. At the time of our review, 122
Navigator-like staff had been established through the Work Incentive
Grants. Eleven of the sites we visited had either Disability Program
Navigators or Work Incentive Grant Navigators. Some of the Navigators we
interviewed told us they had the following job responsibilities:
o providing disability-related staff training;
o helping staff locate resources for specific persons with disabilities,
such as accommodations or services in the community;
o developing relationships with disability-related service providers,
such as VR and other community agencies; and
o helping to ensure the accessibility of the one-stop, such as by
conducting accessibility assessments or developing accessibility
plans.
During our site visits, we found that local areas and one-stop centers had
made various efforts and degrees of progress in facilitating comprehensive
access to the one-stops' programs and services. Specifically, we found the
following:
Architectural access. Our site visits showed that most local area and
one-stop officials were working to implement architectural access
standards, which are required by the WIA Section 188 regulations. Nearly
all of the sites we visited had undergone at least one architectural
14
In July 2003, ETA and SSA's Office of Program Development and Research
awarded Navigator grants to 14 states: Arizona, California, Colorado,
Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin. ETA and SSA have since
awarded Navigator grants to Mississippi, New Mexico, and Oregon. All 17 of
these states were chosen for this effort because SSA has employment
support initiatives in these locations.
Page 18 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
accessibility assessment within the last few years, and the assessments
were typically conducted by VR or other disability-related agencies. Our
review of these assessments showed that there were often considerable
differences in the degree of architectural access that the locations had
achieved. For example, some of the sites had either no or few problems
with regard to architectural access. Other locations had a number of
access-related problems, including those related to parking, ramps, and
doors, as well as restrooms and signage. Some officials at these locations
told us they had made at least some changes to improve architectural
access. For example, some changes included:
o adding or changing accessible parking spaces to meet requirements;
o installing signage or changing existing signage to meet requirements;
o building a new exterior ramp because the existing one did not meet
architectural access requirements; and
o installing electric door openers. 15
Auxiliary aids and services. Many of the one-stops we visited had acquired
auxiliary aids and services, such as assistive technology and materials in
alternate formats, which the WIA Section 188 regulations require that
one-stops provide to persons with disabilities when necessary. Auxiliary
aids and services include a range of devices, equipment, and services that
provide effective communication for persons with various types of
impairments. According to ETA, the auxiliary aids and services requirement
covers any method of communication, including verbal, written,
computer-based, or telephone communications. Assistive technology refers
to products or equipment that can be used to help people with disabilities
perform their major life functions. Some types of assistive technology can
be used to make existing information technology, including computers and
telephones, available to persons with disabilities. Alternate formats can,
for instance, make written or visual materials available to persons with
visual impairments or make oral information available to persons with
hearing impairments. Table 3 describes selected
Electric door openers are not required by either the Uniform Federal
Accessibility Standards (UFAS) or the Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG). However,
officials from some sites said that their lack of electric doors was an
accessibility concern.
Page 19 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
types of auxiliary aids and services that were available in some of the
onestops we visited.
Table 3: Selected Types of Auxiliary Aids and Services
Examples of impairments for which
Type Purpose the aid or service
may be beneficial
Screen reading software Software programs that Visual impairments
present text as speech
Cognitive impairments
Software that can
Screen magnification software increase the size of Visual impairments
characters on a
computer screen
Closed-circuit Electronically magnifies
television/video printed text and Visual impairments
displays it on a
magnifier monitor
Software programs that
Speech recognition software allow users to give Visual impairments
commands and
enter information using Mobility impairments
speech rather than a
mouse or
keyboard Cognitive impairments
Increases character size
Large-screen computer in proportion to Visual impairments
computer monitor
monitors dimensions
An alternative to a
Trackball mouse standard mouse, this Mobility impairments
mouse has
movable balls on top of a base that can be used to
move
the cursor on screen
Alternative keyboards Those with larger or smaller Mobility impairments
than standard keys or
keyboards, alternative key configurations, keyboards
for
use with one hand, and others
Device that lets people
TTY (text telephone)/TDD with hearing or speech Hearing impairments
impairments
(telecommunications device use the telephone to Speech impairments
communicate, by allowing
them to
for the deaf) type messages back and
forth to one another
instead of
talking and listening
Other assistive Devices that amplify sound
listening in specific listening Hearing impairments
situations
devices (e.g., watching television, Cognitive impairments
using the telephone), while
also
reducing the effects of background noise
Presenting print or visual
Alternate formats materials in Braille or large Visual impairments
print,
on audiotape, or on compact disk Cognitive impairments
Presenting spoken information in
writing Hearing impairments
Cognitive impairments
Source: GAO summary of information collected through site visits and from
access guides.
At the time of our site visits, a few one-stops had either recently
installed assistive technology for the first time or were still in the
process of acquiring it. However, other sites had assistive technology,
and some or all of the staff had already received training in how to use
it. Some of these sites offered a range of devices, which could assist
many types of impairments. Given the wide variety of devices available,
some local areas and one-stops targeted their resources, at least
initially, toward items that might be used frequently. For example, one
local area-working with an agency that had assistive technology
expertise-collected data on the types of impairments that were most
prevalent among potential customers and then used these data to determine
which devices to purchase first. In addition, a couple of officials said
that their one-stops had some materials, such as basic orientation
materials, routinely available in Braille or largeprint formats. Some
officials told us that they did not have any of their materials routinely
available in alternate formats, although they would provide these to
customers upon request. In some cases, officials said that they could
rapidly provide customers with certain types of alternate formats, such as
Braille, large print, computer diskette, or compact disk, through the use
of their assistive technology or computers.
Reasonable accommodations. Some officials and staff we interviewed said
they try to make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
Reasonable accommodations, which are required by the WIA Section 188
regulations, enable persons with disabilities to receive aid, benefits,
services, or training equal to that provided to persons without
disabilities. For example, a number of officials and staff mentioned that
although they did not have a qualified American Sign Language interpreter
on-site at their one-stops, they have obtained an interpreter upon a
customer's request. 16 However, during our site visits, we also found that
local area and one-stops' policies and procedures for providing reasonable
accommodations varied. For example, officials from a few local areas and
one-stops said they referred to their state workforce agency's or their
local government's policies for guidance on this issue. A few officials
said that they had developed their own local accommodation policies or
procedures, or planned to do so. For example, one local area developed
written policies and procedures that provided information on how customers
should request an accommodation, which staff could assist in providing a
reasonable accommodation, and which staff were responsible for determining
if the one-stop is able to provide the accommodation. In addition, some
officials told us that when they have received accommodation requests,
they have not maintained records on the types of accommodations requested
or whether the one-stop provided these accommodations. However, in at
least one of the local areas we visited,
A reasonable accommodation may require making specific structural or other
modifications, including the provision of auxiliary aids and services such
as sign language interpreters, telephone amplifiers, or alternate formats,
to meet the specific needs of a particular customer with a disability.
Accommodations are generally provided only after an individual with a
disability requests it, as opposed to being available up front.
Page 21 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
the local equal opportunity officer-who addressed all accommodation
requests-said that he maintained records on this information.
Integrated settings. During our site visits, we found variation in
viewpoints regarding the practice of automatically referring persons with
disabilities to VR for services. 17 Even though agencies such as VR could
provide services to persons with disabilities, the WIA Section 188
regulations require that one-stops allow persons with disabilities the
opportunity to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate
to meet their needs. An integrated setting is one that enables persons
with disabilities to interact with persons without disabilities. Although
a referral to VR may be appropriate for some individuals, automatically
referring all persons with disabilities to VR does not allow for the
opportunity to receive services along with persons without disabilities.
Moreover, an automatic referral to VR does not provide customers with an
individualized assessment of their abilities and needs.
Some local area and one-stop officials we interviewed acknowledged that
automatic referrals to VR did occur in the past. However, a number of
officials and staff understood that this practice is not appropriate, or
said that it is not currently occurring in their one-stops. Some of these
officials and staff said that services for persons with disabilities are
determined on a case-by-case basis and that unless these individuals want
or indicate that they need VR services, they are not referred to VR. Some
WIA officials, as well as a few VR officials and others who have provided
staff training on disability issues, explained that one-stop staff have
been trained not to automatically refer persons with disabilities to VR.
For example, staff were trained not to stereotype persons with
disabilities or assume that they need VR services, or were trained to
provide these customers with a choice regarding which services they use.
However, during our site visits, officials in two local areas told us that
they currently found it preferable or necessary to automatically refer
persons with disabilities to VR. Officials from one local area stated that
while a disability-related agency advised them that one-stop staff should
not be automatically referring persons with disabilities to VR, they took
exception to this guidance. The local area officials explained that it
would
Individuals with disabilities who are eligible for VR services are those
persons who have a physical or mental impairment that, for an such
individual, constitutes or results in a substantial impediment to
employment, and who can benefit in terms of an employment outcome from
vocational rehabilitation services.
Page 22 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
be irresponsible of them not to fully utilize the expertise of the only
mandatory disability partner in the WIA system. Officials from another
local area said that although their long-term goal is to train one-stop
staff to work directly with persons with disabilities, they believe that
their onestop staff are currently referring these customers to VR.
Additionally, some WIA, VR, and disability-related agency officials also
expressed concerns that trying to meet performance standards could provide
an incentive for one-stops to automatically refer persons with
disabilities to VR, only serve those with the least severe disabilities,
or not serve them at all. Some officials explained that it is sometimes
more difficult for persons with disabilities, particularly those with more
severe disabilities, to find and retain jobs, and that it is often more
costly for the one-stop to serve these individuals.
Marketing and outreach. Some officials and staff we interviewed cited a
variety of reasons why marketing the one-stops' services and conducting
outreach to persons with disabilities, which are activities required by
the WIA Section 188 regulations, may be important. One of the reasons
cited was that many individuals in the community, including those with
disabilities, were still not aware of the types of programs and services
that one-stops offer. For example, a one-stop official said that one-stops
are often thought of as an employment service, without recognition that
they can offer participants education, referrals to disability-related
agencies for services, and other assistance. Some WIA officials and
disability-related agency representatives also said that even when the
disability community knows what the one-stops offer, the one-stops often
have to overcome the belief that one-stops do not want to, or are not
capable of, providing services to persons with disabilities. For example,
the disability community may believe that the one-stops do not have
assistive technology or provide other assistance to persons with
disabilities. Additionally, some officials also stated that they believe
that persons with disabilities are still more likely to seek services from
disability-related organizations than from one-stops.
Some of the officials from local areas and one-stops that had engaged in
marketing and outreach efforts said they had used one or more
community-based disability organizations in their efforts. For example,
local areas or one-stops sometimes approached independent living centers,
agencies that serve individuals with specific types of disabilities, or
other organizations to inform them about the one-stops' services and their
accessible technology. Some officials also said they used brochures,
television or radio ads, billboards, or other means to market their
services to persons with disabilities. Other local area and one-stop
officials told us about the specialized techniques they used, such as
holding a yearly job fair for persons with disabilities, which provides
attendees with information about one-stop services.
Officials in a few local areas and one-stops, however, stated that they
were hesitant to market their services to persons with disabilities. For
example, one local area official was not confident about the ability of
some one-stop staff to handle disability issues and, as a result, did not
want to market what the one-stops in the area could not provide. An
official in another local area expressed a similar viewpoint with regard
to the lack of marketing around an assistive technology device that had
not been used. The official stated that the local area had not advertised
the device because he did not believe the one-stops in that area were
fully capable of providing services to persons with disabilities.
Staff training. Although the WIA Section 188 regulations do not
specifically require that one-stop staff, other than the equal opportunity
officer and his or her staff, receive training on disability, the WIA
Section 188 Checklist includes training as one example of how one-stops
can ensure compliance with WIA's comprehensive access requirements.
Onestop staff in the majority of the local areas we visited had received
some disability-related information and training, but the range of topics
covered varied across sites. For example, officials in at least one local
area told us that they were still focusing on providing staff with
disability awareness training, while officials, staff, and staff training
providers in other locations described a wider range of training topics,
such as:
o disability awareness or sensitivity training; 18
o types of services that VR provides, and the agency's eligibility rules
and criteria;
o types of disability-related agencies in the community, as well as who
they serve, the types of services they offer, and their contact
information;
Disability awareness or sensitivity training teaches one-stop staff, for
example, to use people-first language-such as "an individual with a
disability" as opposed to "the disabled." It may also include education on
how to interact with persons with disabilities, such as asking if an
individual needs assistance first rather than automatically providing it
or speaking directly to a person who is deaf instead of speaking to the
person's sign language interpreter.
Page 24 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
o how to identify certain disabilities, including hidden disabilities
such as mental illness or learning disabilities; and
o WIA Section 188 training.
We also found that a few local areas and one-stops created comprehensive
training programs or targeted their training to identified staff needs.
For example, one local area created an extensive disability-training
program that provides online and in-class training on a range of relevant
disabilityrelated issues and discusses these issues in the context of
particular disabilities. This training program has been made available on
a statewide basis. Also, in one state, staff at the three one-stops we
visited had undergone, or were scheduled to undergo, an assessment of
their training needs. These assessments were then going to be used to
develop training plans for each of these one-stops.
Some officials and staff stated that the available disability-related
staff training was beneficial and provided positive outcomes. For example,
some officials and staff said that the available training made staff more
comfortable interacting with, and providing services to, persons with
disabilities and helped them learn about the range of disability-related
services that VR and other agencies in the community offer. However, other
officials and staff expressed some concerns about the available training.
For example, a few of these officials and staff said that they would like
training on specific disability-related topics to be available, and in at
least one case, local area and one-stop officials had concerns about how
well their limited training prepared staff for providing services to
persons with disabilities. Additionally, some of the officials, staff, and
staff training providers we interviewed said that their training efforts
were affected by high staff turnover and the prospect of staff forgetting
the information learned in training if it is not used very often. Some
officials, staff, and staff training providers said that offering ongoing
training was important for these reasons or that they would like ongoing
training to be available in their one-stops.
One-Stops and Disability Agencies Have Established Various Relationships to
Serve Persons with Disabilities
One-stops, VR, and other disability-related agencies in the community have
formed various relationships to provide services to persons with
disabilities. From our site visits, we found that the structure of the
onestops' relationships with VR varied, particularly in terms of whether
co-location was occurring. While most of the one-stops we visited had VR
staff on-site at least part of the time, four of the sites we visited had
no on-site VR staff. Table 4 shows the co-location status of VR staff at
the one-stops we visited.
Table 4: Co-location Status of VR Staff in the One-Stops We Visited
Co-location status of VR staff Number of sites
One or more VR staff on-site on a full-time basis
One or more VR staff on-site on a part-time basis
No VR staff on-site
Source: GAO site visits.
Officials from the sites at which full- or part-time co-location of VR
staff was taking place said that co-location was beneficial for a variety
of reasons. For example, some WIA and VR officials said that co-location
itself helped the one-stop staff provide faster and less fragmented
services to persons with disabilities because, when the one-stop staff
made referrals to VR, they did not have to send customers off-site. A few
officials also stated that co-location facilitated information sharing and
helped build relationships between the staff in the two agencies. The
reasons for VR staff not being on-site also varied, and included a lack of
space in the one-stop, the inability of VR to break its lease at an
existing local office, and lack of an interface between the one-stops' and
VR's computer systems.
The one-stops we visited also varied in terms of the extent to which they
formed relationships with disability-related service providers other than
VR. Although VR has extensive expertise in providing services to persons
with disabilities, other disability agencies in the community also have
expertise and resources that can benefit one-stops. At the time of our
site visits, a few local areas and one-stops were relying primarily on VR
and had not formed working relationships with any other disability
agencies. However, other local areas and one-stops we visited had formed
relationships with one or more disability-related organizations in the
community, such as independent living centers, mental health agencies, and
cognitive/developmental disability agencies. 19 In at least one instance,
a local area formed relationships with agencies that focus on particular
impairments. This local area conducted a needs analysis and found that
relationships with organizations that provide services to persons with
psychiatric impairments, learning disabilities, and substance abuse issues
were lacking. As a result, the local area conducted outreach to these
types of organizations in order to initiate relationships with them.
Officials from local areas and their one-stops, as well as those from VR
and community disability agencies, cited a range of benefits to being able
to refer their customers to one another for services, when it was
appropriate to do so. For example, some WIA and VR officials said the
one-stop's relationship with VR allowed the two agencies to combine their
resources to maximize the services they can provide to their customers.
For example, for co-enrolled customers, one agency might pay for school
tuition while another pays for books. Some local area and one-stop
officials also said that referring customers to VR and other community
disability agencies is beneficial because those agencies have the ability
and funding to provide certain services that the one-stops cannot. In
addition, officials in some local areas and one-stops said that VR and
other community agencies' willingness to conduct staff training, provide
onestop accessibility assessments, or participate in one-stop access
committees was beneficial.
VR and community disability agencies also cited a number of benefits to
referring their customers to the one-stops, including access to the
onestops' career resource centers' computers and telephones, their
workshop or training classes (such as those for computer skills, interview
skills, and resume-writing), and a range of job listings and employer
connections broader than their own. VR officials also cited other
benefits. For example, when a VR customer is faced with delayed services
because VR is waiting for documents substantiating the customer's
disability, the one-stops can provide other services in the interim.
Additionally, VR officials told us they find it useful to refer
individuals who did not qualify for services through
These community-based disability organizations typically did not co-locate
their staff at the one-stops on either a full-time or a part-time basis.
However, there were some exceptions-such as, for example, in cases in
which the disability-related agencies were the sole or co-operators of a
one-stop.
Page 27 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Labor Has Taken Actions to Ensure That One-Stops Comply with Access
Requirements, but These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient
VR, whether because of limited funding 20 or other reason, to the one-stop
for services.
Labor has taken several actions to ensure that persons with disabilities
have comprehensive access to one-stops, including training, monitoring,
and enforcement activities, but these efforts may not be sufficient. For
example, Labor has not only funded grants, it has also provided training
in ways to facilitate comprehensive accessibility in the one-stop centers.
Specifically, within Labor, ETA and ODEP, along with SSA, provided
Disability Program Navigator training in November 2003 in which successful
approaches to ensuring comprehensive access to one-stops were discussed.
Additional Disability Program Navigator training was provided in November
2004. Further, CRC, with assistance from ETA and ODEP has provided written
guidance and assistance to one-stops on accommodations and other ways to
improve comprehensive access for persons with disabilities. Also within
Labor, CRC conducts national equal opportunity training annually. Its
August 2004 training included topics such as new EO officer orientation,
implementing an MOA, ensuring compliance with WIA Section 188, testing and
assessment tools for improving services to persons with disabilities, and
train-the-trainer EO training.
In addition to providing training, CRC is the entity responsible for
interpreting, monitoring, and enforcing WIA Section 188 regulations
regarding programs receiving financial assistance from Labor, including
the applicable comprehensive access and administrative regulatory
requirements for one-stop centers. One key method Labor uses to ensure
compliance with these regulations has been to require that each state's
governor establish and sign an MOA, which describes and contains
supporting documentation of the policies, procedures, and systems that
each state has established to ensure compliance. By signing the MOA, and
submitting it to CRC, the governor agrees to adhere to its provisions. CRC
provides guidance on preparing the MOA, reviews the adequacy of each state
MOA submitted, and approves those MOAs that meet its standards. Currently,
all governors have submitted MOAs that have been approved by CRC. After
initial approval, states are to notify CRC of any updates to their
20
In states where VR funding is not sufficient to serve all eligible
clients, there may be an order of selection in place, whereby VR is able
to accept only those individuals with the most significant disabilities
who could benefit from VR services. Of the states we visited, only one was
not under an order of selection for the general disability population.
Page 28 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
MOAs, and every 2 years Labor requires states to review them and the
manner in which they have been implemented, and determine whether their
MOAs continue to be effective in ensuring compliance with the requirements
of WIA Section 188 and its implementing regulations.
In addition, CRC monitors states' compliance with the nondiscrimination,
comprehensive access, and administrative regulatory requirements by
conducting on-site technical assistance compliance reviews at selected
locations. To facilitate the review process, CRC conducts a 2-to 3-day
training session for state, local workforce investment area, and one-stop
center staff. 21 In 2003, CRC completed its first phase of on-site
training, technical assistance, and compliance reviews in two large
metropolitan areas in two states, Miami/Dade County, Florida, and New
York, New York. According to Labor's 2003 Annual Report, CRC focuses its
reviews on large metropolitan areas so as to maximize the use of its
resources. The annual report notes that the large labor markets in these
areas provide the opportunity for gaining a representative picture of the
degree of compliance with nondiscrimination and equal opportunity laws and
regulations.
In both metropolitan areas it reviewed, CRC identified instances of
noncompliance, including the existence of barriers limiting services to
persons with disabilities. At one of the two metropolitan areas, CRC found
significant differences between the disability-related requirements in WIA
Section 188 and its implementing regulations and the policies, procedures,
and systems that were actually being used. For example, CRC found that the
local area had developed a service delivery system in which customers with
disabilities were routinely being served by programs or activities that
were separate from those used to serve customers without disabilities.
Officials at the local area told CRC such a service delivery system had
developed in part because there was a general sentiment among
disabilityrelated service providers that many of their customers did not
feel comfortable in the one-stops. The WIA Section 188 regulations,
however, require that services to qualified persons with disabilities be
provided in the most integrated settings appropriate to the needs of those
customers. Therefore, as noted in CRC's review, a one-stop center
generally should not refer customers with disabilities to a separate
program or activity until
In addition to CRC staff, presenters at the sessions included staff from
ETA and ODEP, as well as representatives of the United States Access
Board, and the Job Accommodation Network.
Page 29 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
after it has conducted an individualized assessment of a customer's needs,
and determined that the channels used to serve customers without
disabilities cannot provide equally effective aid, benefits, services, or
training to persons with disabilities. In addition, the ultimate decision
whether to accept the referral to a separate program or activity must be
left up to the customer with a disability. If the customer declines to
accept the referral, the one-stop must serve the customer with a
disability through the same programs or activities used to serve all other
customers.
In addition, CRC found that the EO officer at the local area in that
metropolitan area had not been provided with sufficient staff, other
resources, or adequate support from top management to carry out his
duties. As a result, staff at the local workforce investment area and
one-stops had little understanding of their disability-related or other
obligations under WIA Section 188 regulations.
At the other metropolitan area reviewed, CRC found that some of the
policies, procedures, and systems in the state's approved MOA had not been
fully implemented. For instance, the local workforce investment area had
developed an intake eligibility form for use by the one-stops that
included questions concerning whether or not the customer had a disability
that was or was not a substantial barrier to employment. Frontline staff
at the one-stop centers told CRC that all customers were welcome to use
self-service and core services. However, CRC found that customers who
indicated on the intake form that they had a disability could not receive
intensive or training services unless they provided the one-stop with
documentation to support their disability, even when disability was not an
eligibility criterion to receive such services. CRC found that the use of
the intake form, combined with the requirement that customers provide
documentation of their disability, unnecessarily screened out people with
disabilities from receiving intensive and training services, even though
Labor's WIA Section 188 regulations require that the one-stops must not
deny any qualified person with a disability the opportunity to participate
in, or benefit from, a WIA-funded program or activity because of that
person's disability. On the basis of its findings, CRC required the state
entities responsible for WIA in which the two metropolitan areas were
located to provide it with written responses of the corrective actions
they planned to make.
In addition, in May 2004, the CRC Director requested that all states
complete, for themselves and their largest local area, a self-assessment
tool to assess compliance with the equal opportunity and nondiscrimination
laws and regulations. The self-assessment tool, which
Information on Employment Outcomes Is Limited
provides a structured approach for monitoring compliance, was adapted from
the WIA Section 188 Disability Checklist. For each state and its largest
local workforce investment area, the self-assessment tool asks whether or
not each measure of compliance has been met. For all unmet measures, the
self-assessment tool asks for a written explanation of how and when the
measure will be met. At the time of our review, CRC was in the process of
developing a plan to analyze the qualitative responses they would receive
from the states. CRC anticipates using the information provided by these
self-assessments and from its on-site reviews to identify exemplary
practices as well as areas needing improvement.
In addition to the two on-site reviews CRC conducted in 2003, CRC is in
the process of conducting two additional reviews in two large metropolitan
areas in two other states, which it plans to complete during fiscal year
2005. To date the monitoring and enforcement efforts that have been or are
being conducted account for less than 2 percent of the total number of
local areas and one-stops nationwide. Moreover, the CRC Director said that
she had not yet determined whether CRC would conduct additional on-site
reviews. Limited staff and competing work priorities may hinder CRC's
ability to conduct additional reviews. The Director noted that CRC has
experienced an erosion in the number of staff since 1998, and she did not
foresee any change to this trend in the future. The 44 professional and
administrative staff that CRC currently has are responsible for not only
all issues involving discrimination in one-stops and other Labor-funded
programs, but also for all discrimination issues involving the more than
17,000 employees at Labor. Moreover, the Director explained that these
staff are also responsible for addressing other workload priorities, such
as issues to improve access to programs and activities for persons who are
limited in their English proficiency.
Information about the employment outcomes of persons with disabilities is
limited by the extent to which disability data are collected and the
overall methods used for collecting data for WIA's performance measures.
The three WIA-funded programs-Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth- have
performance measures established under WIA that states must track and
report in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the programs. These
performance measures gauge program results in such areas as job placement,
employment retention, earnings changes, and skill attainment. In addition
to providing information about all participants in the three WIA-funded
programs, Labor also publishes outcome information about certain
subpopulations, including veterans, older individuals, and persons with
disabilities.
The information Labor publishes on the employment outcomes of persons with
disabilities, however, is limited for several reasons. One reason is that
the information is limited to the subpopulation of persons with
disabilities who disclose their disability status, and therefore the
employment outcomes may be misleading for the total population of persons
with disabilities receiving services through WIA. The WIA Section 188
regulations require one-stops to collect, maintain, and report job
seekers' demographic data-including disability status-to ensure that
discrimination is not occurring. Labor has issued guidance stating that
one-stops must inquire about disability status from job seekers upon
registration for services. Such inquiries must be asked of all job
seekers, but an individual's decision to disclose his or her disability
status must be completely voluntary. Even though an individual declines to
indicate his or her disability status, the one-stop must still provide
services to the individual.
Further, the collection of information on employment outcomes, including
the information on persons with disabilities, is limited to those persons
who are registered for WIA services. Current law does not require job
seekers who receive services that are self-service and informational in
nature to be included in the performance measures. Labor's guidance
instructs states to register and report on adults and dislocated workers
who receive core services that require significant staff assistance
designed to help with job seeking or acquiring occupational skills, but
states have flexibility in deciding what constitutes significant staff
assistance. 22 We have previously reported that most of the one-stop
customers who participate in self-directed services, and receive only
limited staff assistance, are estimated to be the largest proportion of
job seekers under WIA. 23 But since they are not registered for services,
they are excluded from the employment outcome data published by Labor. In
that report, we also noted that Labor said that it is developing a new
reporting system that would enable states to report activity and outcomes
for all WIA participants. According to Labor, tracking all one-stop job
seekers will enable officials to obtain information about who is served,
what services
All youth who receive WIA-financially assisted services are required to be
registered. 23 GAO-04-657.
Page 32 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Conclusions
are provided, which partner programs provided the services, and what
outcomes are achieved. 24
Finally, the performance measurement system developed under WIA may have a
negative effect on the economic outcomes of some people with disabilities
because the performance levels may provide a disincentive to serve certain
clients, including those with disabilities. Under WIA, performance levels
are tied to incentives and sanctions so that states can be financially
rewarded if they meet them or penalized if they do not. As such, local
areas may be reluctant to provide WIA-funded services to job seekers,
including persons with disabilities, who may be less likely than others to
find employment or experience an increase in earnings when they are placed
in jobs. To address this issue, we recently recommended that the Secretary
of Labor develop an adjustment model or other systematic method to account
for different populations and local economic conditions when negotiating
performance levels. 25 In commenting on our recommendation, Labor agreed
with the importance of taking economic conditions and characteristics of
the population into account when setting performance expectations and had
commissioned a study of adjustment models that could better take these
differences into account.
The WIA one-stop system's ability to provide comprehensive access to its
programs, services, and activities can affect whether, and how,
individuals with disabilities participate in the American workforce.
Although Labor has developed specific regulations requiring that people
with disabilities have equal opportunity to participate in and benefit
from the programs and services offered in the WIA one-stop system, its
efforts to date may not be sufficient to ensure that result. Five years
after Labor issued regulations implementing the nondiscrimination and
equal opportunity provisions of WIA Section 188, the agency has yet to
develop and implement a long-term plan for ensuring that the one-stop
system complies with the comprehensive access requirements for persons
with disabilities. Although CRC, ETA and ODEP have worked together on some
comprehensive
24
In addition, on July 16, 2004, Labor published a notice in the Federal
Register on a proposal to collect additional information on the types of
impairments that one-stop customers have, including learning disabilities,
visual, hearing, and speech impairments, and cognitive and psychological
impairments. Labor believes that collecting information on impairment
types will facilitate its ability to focus on, and evaluate its
effectiveness in, servicing people with disabilities through the one-stop
system.
25GAO-04-657.
access projects, they have not developed an overall plan to conduct the
activities necessary to ensure comprehensive access to one-stops for all
Americans.
To improve comprehensive access for persons with disabilities to the one-
Recommendation
stop system, we recommend that Labor develop and implement a longterm plan
for ensuring that the one-stop system complies with the comprehensive
access requirements for people with disabilities. Moreover, in this era of
constrained resources, Labor should utilize the expertise of CRC, ETA, and
ODEP staff in developing such a plan.
Agency Comments
We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Labor and
Education for their review and comments. Education did not have comments
on our report.
Labor generally agreed with our recommendation and said that even more
could be done to ensure comprehensive access within the one-stop system.
Specifically, ETA has pledged to work with ODEP and CRC to develop and
implement a long-term plan for addressing comprehensive access in the
one-stop system. ETA also suggested that the development of such a
long-term plan should include all of the participating agencies and
programs. Moreover, ODEP stated that the comprehensive plan should also
address nonspecialized disability supports and services, such as
transportation.
ODEP and CRC also provided us with some general comments on our report.
ODEP noted that, in addition to the WIG and Navigator grants, Labor
supports other efforts to facilitate the inclusion of people with
disabilities in the one-stop system. Although our report focuses on those
grants that are most directly related to facilitating comprehensive access
in the one-stop system, we have added examples of some of the types of
grants that ODEP has awarded to support employment-related initiatives for
people with disabilities. In addition, CRC asked us to clarify our use of
the term comprehensive access. CRC expressed some concern that we had
included administrative requirements in the use of the term comprehensive
access. CRC believed that administrative requirements should not be
included as they are not specifically disability-related. We have modified
the language in our report to clarify that the administrative requirements
are not included in the term comprehensive access.
ETA, ODEP, and CRC also provided us with technical comments and
clarifications, which we have incorporated as appropriate. Copies of their
comments appear in appendix I.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, the
Secretary of Education, relevant congressional committees, and others who
are interested. Copies will also be made available to others upon request.
The report will be available on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Other major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix II.
Sigurd R. Nilsen
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Labor
Page 37 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Page 38 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Page 39 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Page 40 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Page 41 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Page 42 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Page 43 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Page 44 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Page 45 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Page 46 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Page 47 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Page 48 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Page 49 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Page 50 GAO-05-54 Workforce Investment Act
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Carol Dawn Petersen, Assistant Director (202) 512-7215
GAO Contacts
Gretta L. Goodwin, Senior Economist (202) 512-7215
William E. Hutchinson and Caterina Pisciotta made significant
Staff
contributions to all phases of this report. In addition, Jessica Botsford
and Acknowledgments Richard Burkard provided legal assistance, and Amy
Buck assisted in report development.
Related GAO 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: 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 Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs, but
Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers.
GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003.
Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other
Services . GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate
Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective
Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to
Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness. GAO-02-275.
Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative Voting
Methods. GAO-02-107. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns over
New Requirements . GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.
Workforce Investment Act: New Requirements Create Need for More Guidance.
GAO-02-94T. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.
(130307)
GAO's Mission
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 GAO
Reports and 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:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected]
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected]( 202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
Washington, D.C. 20548
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***