Registered Apprenticeship Programs: Labor Can Better Use Data to 
Target Oversight (29-AUG-05, GAO-05-886).			 
                                                                 
Between 2002 and 2012 nearly 850,000 jobs will open in the	 
construction industry; experts predict that there will not be	 
enough skilled workers to fill them. This has heightened concerns
about program outcomes and program quality in the nation's	 
apprenticeship system and the U.S. Department of Labor's	 
oversight of it. GAO assessed (1) the extent to which Labor	 
monitors registered apprenticeship programs in the states where  
it has direct oversight, (2) its oversight activities in states  
that do their own monitoring, and (3) the outcomes for		 
construction apprentices in programs sponsored by employers and  
unions in relation to programs sponsored by employers alone.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-886 					        
    ACCNO:   A34737						        
  TITLE:     Registered Apprenticeship Programs: Labor Can Better Use 
Data to Target Oversight					 
     DATE:   08/29/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Construction workers				 
	     Data collection					 
	     Employment assistance programs			 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Labor force					 
	     Labor shortages					 
	     Monitoring 					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Skilled labor					 
	     State-administered programs			 
	     Apprentices					 
	     DOL National Registered Apprenticeships		 
	     System						 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** 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-05-886

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

                       Report to Congressional Requesters

August 2005

REGISTERED APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS

                 Labor Can Better Use Data to Target Oversight

GAO-05-886

[IMG]

August 2005

REGISTERED APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS

Labor Can Better Use Data to Target Oversight

                                 What GAO Found

Labor's monitoring of programs it directly oversees has been limited. We
found that in 2004 Labor reviewed only 4 percent of programs in the 23
states where it has direct oversight. According to federal program
directors in those states, limited staff constrained their ability to do
more reviews. Also, Labor has focused in recent years on registering new
programs and recruiting apprentices. Although Labor collects much data
about the programs it oversees, it has not employed its database to
generate information indicative of program performance, such as completion
rates, that might allow it to be more efficient in its oversight.

Labor does not regularly review council-monitored states or collect data
from them that would allow for a national picture of apprenticeships.
Labor is responsible for conducting formal reviews of the 27 states and
the District of Columbia that established apprenticeship councils to
monitor their own apprenticeship programs; but, according to directors in
these states, the reviews have been infrequent and not necessarily useful.
While Labor collects only aggregate data on apprentices from most of these
states, we identified 10 states with large numbers of apprentices that
were willing and capable of providing GAO data on apprentices by
occupation as well as some information on completion rates, completion
times, and wages.

Data in Labor's apprenticeship database and from council-monitored states
show that completion rates and wages for construction apprentices in
programs sponsored jointly by employers and unions were higher than those
for programs sponsored by employers alone. We found that completion rates
for apprentices in programs jointly sponsored by unions and employers were
47 percent on average compared with 30 percent in programs sponsored
solely by employers. Completion rates declined under both types of
sponsorship for the period we examined, but Labor, as part of its
oversight, does not track reasons for noncompletion, making it difficult
to determine what lies behind this trend.

                        Construction Apprentices at Work

Source: Department of Labor/OATELS.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

Letter

Results in Brief
Background
Labor's Monitoring of Registered Apprenticeship Programs Is

Limited

Labor Has Reviewed Council-Monitored States Infrequently,
Provided Little Feedback, and Not Collected Data That Would
Allow for a National Picture of Apprenticeships

Construction Apprenticeship Completion Rates and Wages Vary by

Program Sponsor
Conclusions
Recommendations
Agency Comments

                                       1

                                      3 5

                                       7

12

16 25 25 26

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Appendix II	Completion Rates, Time Taken to Complete, and Wages for
Construction Apprentices in Council-Monitored States

Appendix III	Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
Federally-Monitored States

Appendix IV	Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
Council-Monitored States

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Labor 63

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 65

                            Related GAO Products 66

Tables

Table 1: Differences between Actual and Expected Completion Time for
Apprentices in Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs in Weeks

Table 2: Survey Numbers and Response Rates

Table 3: Percentages of Apprentices Completing Joint and Nonjoint
Construction Programs as Reported by Selected Council-monitored States for
Fiscal Years 1997-2004

Table 4: Average Number of Weeks Spent to Complete Joint and Non-joint
Construction Apprenticeship Programs as Reported by Selected
Council-monitored States

Table 5: Mean Hourly Wage Rates for Beginning Apprentices in Joint and
Non-joint Construction Programs as Reported by Selected Council-monitored
States, Fiscal Year 2004

Table 6: Mean Hourly Wage Rates for Apprentices Achieving Journey Status
in Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs as Reported by Selected
Council-monitored States, Fiscal Year 2004

                                     23 28

                                       30

                                       32

                                       34

                                       36

Figures

Figure 1: States with Apprenticeship Programs Overseen by Federal
Officials and State Apprenticeship Councils 6

Figure 2: Frequency of Quality and Equal Employment Opportunity Reviews of
Apprenticeship Programs in Federally-and Council-monitored States during
Fiscal Year 2004 9

Figure 3: Frequency of Federal Reviews of Council-monitored States 13
Figure 4: Council-monitored States' Rankings of the Usefulness of Federal
Quality Reviews 14 Figure 5: Council-monitored States' Rankings of the
Usefulness of EEO Reviews 15 Figure 6: Completion Rates after 6 Years for
Apprentices Entering Construction Programs in FY 1994 through 1998 18

Figure 7: Completion Rates after 6 Years by Occupation for Apprentices Who
Began Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs between FY 1994 and 1998
19

Figure 8: Enrollment for Apprentices in Joint and Non-joint Construction
Programs, FY 1994 through 1998 21

Figure 9: Trends in Completion Rates after 6 Years for Apprentices in
Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs Entering Programs in FY 1994
through 1998 22

Figure 10: Average Wages for Apprentices in Joint and Non-Joint
Construction Programs in FY 2004 24

Abbreviations

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity
ETA Employment and Training Administration
OATELS Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor

Services RAIS Registered Apprenticeship Information System SAC State
Apprenticeship Council WIA Workforce Investment Act

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

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

August 29, 2005

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Ranking Member
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
United States Senate

The Honorable Patty Murray
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
United States Senate

Between 2002 and 2012 an estimated 850,000 jobs will open in the
construction industry, but experts predict that there will not be enough
skilled workers to fill them. The National Registered Apprenticeships
System, administered by the Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer
and Labor Services (OATELS) within the Department of Labor, has an
important role in the development of this skilled workforce. With a budget
of $21 million, OATELS promulgates standards to safeguard the welfare of
apprentices and registers apprenticeship programs that meet those
standards, which include requirements for related instruction, on-the-job
training, and equal employment opportunity for apprentices. OATELS also
oversees apprenticeship programs to ensure that they provide quality
training for apprentices, as many as 480,000 of whom may be enrolled at
any one time. Labor, through OATELS, directly registers and oversees
programs in 23 states. It has granted 27 other states, the District of
Columbia, and 3 territories authority to register and oversee their own
programs, and ensures programs comply with federal standards and meet
additional state standards. In these states, referred to here as council
monitored states, OATELS reviews the activities of the apprenticeship
councils that are responsible for ensuring programs in their state comply
with federal labor standards and equal opportunity protections. While
Labor and apprenticeship councils provide oversight, recent studies have
shown that a significant number of construction apprentices are not
completing their programs and that construction programs sponsored by
employers without union participation have lower completion rates and
wages for apprentices. In addition, some have raised concerns that the
failure to complete programs could be indicative of poor program quality.
The anticipated shortage of skilled construction workers has heightened
concerns about the relationship between program outcomes and program

quality, the prospect for expanding the supply of skilled workers through
apprenticeships, and Labor's oversight of these programs.

In view of these concerns, you asked us to review the extent of federal
oversight of apprenticeship programs in general and compare apprenticeship
outcomes in the construction industry by type of program sponsorship.
Specifically, we assessed (1) the extent to which the U.S. Department of
Labor monitors the operations and outcomes of registered apprenticeship
programs in the states where it has direct oversight, (2) its oversight
activities for council-monitored states, and (3) the outcomes for
construction apprentices in programs sponsored jointly by employers and
unions in relation to those sponsored by employers alone.

To obtain national information on Labor's monitoring and oversight
activities, we surveyed all state directors of apprenticeship training
programs through electronic questionnaires posted on the World Wide Web.
We excluded the three territories-Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands-from our analyses because the few programs they had were atypical.
We also visited four states, both federal (Texas) and council-monitored
(California, New York, and Washington), that had large numbers of
construction apprentices (from about 52,000 to 6,500). In these states, we
talked to knowledgeable officials, private-sector experts and
stakeholders, including employer and labor union sponsors of
apprenticeship programs. In some cases, we visited apprentice training
facilities. To determine completion rates, times to completion, and wage
rates for apprentices, we analyzed data in Labor's apprenticeship database
for the fiscal years 1994 through 2004. In calculating completion rates,
we constructed five cohorts based on when apprentices enrolled in a
program-1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, or 1998-and established their completion
status 6 years after they enrolled. These analyses included data on
programs in 23 states where Labor has direct oversight and programs in 8
council-monitored states.1 In addition, we obtained comparable data on
construction programs from 10 council-monitored states that have large
numbers of construction apprentices and were able to provide this
information. The 41 states for which we had some type of data accounted
for an estimated 92 percent of all construction apprentices. We also
interviewed Labor officials and other knowledgeable parties. (See app. I.)

1Labor's database also includes data from some federally registered
programs in councilmonitored states.

  Results in Brief

We conducted our work between August of 2004 and July 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Labor's monitoring of the programs it directly oversees has been limited,
in part, due to staffing levels and also its reluctance to use data to
target oversight. In 2004, Labor reviewed only 4 percent of programs in
the 23 states where it has direct oversight, in part, because of limited
staffing, according to federal program directors in those states.
Currently each reviewer has responsibility for about 2,000 apprentices for
whom they enter apprentice and program information in Labor's database, in
addition to reviewing program quality and equal employment opportunities,
and overseeing program progress. Labor officials also said that in recent
years their resources have been more focused on developing new programs
and recruiting apprentices, particularly for new fields. Although Labor
collects much data about the programs it oversees, its Apprenticeship
Office has not employed its database to generate information on program
performance. Federal program directors for the states told us, for
example, that they do not systematically use outcome data from the
database, such as completion rates or apprentices' reasons for dropping
out, to determine which programs to review. This limited use of data may
stem, in part, from challenges in accessing it. These program directors
reported that they were not able to generate customized reports and that
data fields had been changing frequently. Recently, however, the
Apprenticeship Office has begun piloting new software that agency
officials say will make it possible for federal program directors to
effectively extract information from the database and generate customized
reports. Still, federal program directors in two states who were already
using the software said they were still unable to look at programs by
occupation at the state level, a level of analysis that most state program
directors-17 of 23 we surveyed-said they wanted. In addition, we found
little evidence that the Apprenticeship Office had systematically sought
input from federal program directors regarding their reporting needs or
problems they might face in using the new software. Nor could Labor
officials provide a plan with explicit steps for its implementation.

Labor does not regularly review the activities of the states
apprenticeship councils or collect data from them that would allow for a
national picture of apprenticeships. Labor's reviews have been infrequent,
according to directors of apprenticeship systems in most of the 27
council-monitored states. Moreover, some directors reported not having had
reviews in the last 9 to 12 years, and our examination of apprenticeship
office documents indicated the department had conducted only three reviews
for 2002 and

2003, and none for 2004. In addition, many directors reported the reviews
were of limited use in helping them assess programs or make informed
decisions about their administration, in part because of the limited
feedback they received. While neither statute nor regulations specify the
frequency of these reviews, according to Labor officials they are
important for ensuring that states are fulfilling federal requirements for
recognition and oversight of apprenticeship programs. Labor has only
collected aggregate counts of apprentices from most of these states, and
to date has been unable to develop a composite national picture of
apprentices. We nevertheless found 10 states with large numbers of
apprentices that readily provided apprentice data to us by industry,
sponsor, and occupation, as well as some information on completions,
on-time completions, and wages-information that Labor could use to build a
national portrait of apprentices in key programs.

Data in Labor's apprenticeship database and from council-monitored states
show that completion rates and wages for construction apprentices in
programs sponsored jointly by employers and unions were higher than those
for programs sponsored by employers alone. Of apprentices beginning
training between 1994 and 1998 (and completing by 2004), on average, 47
percent of those in programs sponsored jointly with unions completed
compared with 30 percent in programs sponsored solely by employers, a 17
percentage point difference. Officials said joint programs had higher
completion rates because they were more established and more likely to
provide mentoring and job placement services. Despite growth in
construction program enrollments, completion rates consistently declined
for both types of program sponsorship for the time period we examined.
Specifically, while 59 percent of the apprentices who enrolled in
construction programs in 1994 graduated within 6 years, only 37 percent of
1998 enrollees did. Given that Labor, as part of its oversight, does not
track the reasons for noncompletions, it is difficult to determine what
lies behind this trend or what might account for differences in completion
rates by type of sponsorship. Those apprentices that did complete programs
within 6 years tended to finish earlier than they were expected to.
Construction wages were generally higher for apprentices in joint programs
than for those in non-joint programs-being more than $2.00 per hour higher
on average at the start and $6.00 per hour higher on average at completion
of training in 2004, the first full year Labor began collecting wage data.
Factors that may explain such differences in wages include the presence of
a collective bargaining agreement.

In this report we recommend that the Secretary of Labor take steps to use
the data Labor has to better target its oversight activities, develop a
cost-

Background

effective strategy for collecting data from council-monitored states, and
conduct regular reviews with feedback for those states. In its written
comments on a draft of this report the Department of Labor concurred with
these recommendations and said it is taking initial steps to implement
them.

Although apprenticeship programs in the United States are largely private
systems that are paid for largely by program sponsors, the National
Apprenticeship Act of 1937 authorizes and directs the Secretary of Labor
to formulate and promote labor standards that safeguard the welfare of
apprentices. The responsibility for formulating and promoting these
standards resides with OATELS. OATELS had a staff of about 176 full-time
equivalencies and an annual appropriation of about $21 million in 2004. In
addition, because of budgetary constraints, OATELS officials do not expect
resources to increase. At the national level, OATELS can register and
deregister apprenticeship programs (i.e., give or take away federal
recognition), issue nationally recognized, portable certificates to
individuals who have completed registered programs, plan appropriate
outreach activities targeted to attract women and minorities, and promote
new apprenticeship programs to meet workforce needs. In addition to this
national role, OATELS directly oversees individual apprenticeship programs
in 23 states. In these states, the director for the state's apprenticeship
system and other program staff are federal employees who monitor
individual apprenticeship programs for quality and their provision of
equal opportunity.

Labor can give authority to states to oversee their own apprenticeship
programs if the state meets certain requirements. Labor has given this
authority to 27 states, the District of Columbia, and three territories.
In these states, which we refer to as council-monitored, the federal
government is not responsible for monitoring individual apprenticeship
programs; instead, the state is. It does so through state apprenticeship
councils. OATELS does, however, conduct two types of reviews to determine
how well the state fulfills its responsibilities. Quality reviews
determine, in part, conformance with prescribed federal requirements
concerning state apprenticeship laws, state council composition, and
program registration, cancellation and deregistration provisions. Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) reviews assess the conformity of state EEO
plans, affirmative action activities, record-keeping procedures, and other
activities with federal EEO regulations. In addition to these reviews,
OATELS may also provide state agencies with federal staff to assist in
dayto-day operations.

The number and type of construction apprenticeship programs are
distributed differently across federally- and council-monitored states.
Council-monitored states not only have more programs, but these programs
are more likely to be jointly sponsored by employers and unions than
sponsored by employers alone. On average, a construction apprenticeship
program in federally-monitored states trains about 17 apprentices and in
council-monitored states trains about 20. Beyond this average, it's
important to note that there can be great variation among programs, with
some having over 400 participants and others 1 or 2. Figure 1 identifies
states where programs are federally-and councilmonitored.

Figure 1: States with Apprenticeship Programs Overseen by Federal
Officials and State Apprenticeship Councils

                      Source: Department of Labor/OATELS.

Both the federal and council-monitored states collect data on the
individual programs they oversee. Labor maintains a large database called
the Registered Apprenticeship Information System (RAIS) and collects
information about individual programs, apprentices, and sponsors for
apprenticeships in the 23 states where it has direct oversight and in 8
council-monitored states that have chosen to report into this system. The
other council-monitored states, 20 in total, maintain their own data and
collect various pieces of information on apprenticeship systems. Labor
does collect aggregate data on apprentices and programs from these states.

In all states, individuals can enter the construction trades without
completing formal apprenticeship programs, but many construction workers,
particularly those working in highly skilled occupations that require
extensive training, such as the electrical, carpentry, and plumbing
trades, receive their training though registered apprenticeship programs.
To complete their programs, apprentices must meet requirements for
onthe-job training and classroom instruction that must meet the minimum
standards for the trade as recognized by Labor or the state apprenticeship
council. Programs in some trades, for example, commercial electricity, may
take 5 years to complete but programs to train laborers may only take a
year. Beginning apprentices' wages generally start at about 40 percent of
the wage of someone certified in a particular trade and rise to about 90
percent of that wage near completion. Apprentices' contracts with their
program sponsors specify a schedule of wage increases.

  Labor's Monitoring of Registered Apprenticeship Programs Is Limited

Although OATELS is responsible for overseeing thousands of apprenticeship
programs in the states where it has direct oversight, it reviews few of
these programs each year. Also, while its apprenticeship database collects
much information about individual participants and programs, Labor hasn't
used these data to systematically generate program performance indicators
such as completion rates. As a result, it lacks information that would
allow it to identify poorly performing programs and adjust its oversight
accordingly. Furthermore, despite many technical upgrades, Labor's
database hasn't provided information that meets the needs of federal
apprenticeship directors or the needs of other stakeholders.

Few Federal Staff Are Engaged in Monitoring the Programs That Labor
Directly Oversees

OATELS has reviewed very few of the apprenticeship programs in the states
where it has direct oversight. Federal apprenticeship directors in these
states reported they conducted 379 quality reviews in 2004, covering only
about 4 percent of the programs under their watch. These reviews are done
to determine, for example, whether sponsors have provided related
instruction and on-the-job training hours in accordance with the standards
for the program and whether wages reflected actual time in the program.
The number of reviews conducted varied across states. On average, 22
quality reviews per state were conducted, but one director reported
conducting as many as 67 reviews while another reported conducting no
reviews at all. In addition, programs in council-monitored states were
almost twice as likely as programs in federally-monitored states to have
been reviewed within 3 years. (See fig. 2.) Several federal officials said
over the past several years they had placed primary emphasis on
registering new programs and recruiting more apprentices, particularly in
nontraditional areas such as childcare and health. In addition, they told
us it was not possible to do more reviews in part because of limited
staff.

Figure 2: Frequency of Quality and Equal Employment Opportunity Reviews of
Apprenticeship Programs in Federally- and Council-monitored States during
Fiscal Year 2004

Number of states

Quality reviews

Equal employment opportunity reviews

15

10

5

0

Once a Once Once Less Didn't Once a Once Once Less Didn't year or every
every frequently know year or every 2 every frequently know more 2 years 3
years than every more years 3 years than every 3 years 3 years

Respondents

Federally-monitored states

Council-monitored states

Source: GAO survey of apprenticeship directors in federally- and
council-monitored states.

In addition to having fewer reviews, apprenticeships in federallymonitored
states had fewer staff dedicated to monitoring activities than
council-monitored states. In 2004, each staff person in a federally
monitored state was responsible, on average, for about 2,000 apprentices,
according to federal program directors; to put this in context, case loads
of monitors in federally-monitored states were almost twice as large as
those in council-monitored states. In federally-monitored states, on
average there were about 2.5 staff to monitor programs, less than
one-third the average in council-monitored states. Labor's practice of
assigning federal staff to monitor programs in 18 of the council-monitored
states rather than to programs in federally-monitored states compounded
differences in staff resources. Directors in council-monitored states
reported that at least two federal employees, on average, monitored
programs in their jurisdiction. As important as the number of staff, is
how they spent their time. About a half of the staff in
federally-monitored states

spent 40 percent or more of their time in the field performing monitoring,
oversight, and providing related technical assistance, according to
federal program directors whereas one-half of the staff in
council-monitored states spent about 70 percent or more in the field.

While Labor Collects Much Information about Apprenticeship Programs, It
Does Not Systematically Use Data to Focus Its Oversight

Although Labor collects information to compute completion rates and track
participants who do not complete programs in the time expected, it does
not use these data to focus its oversight efforts on programs with poor
performance. During a site visit in a federally-monitored state, a monitor
showed us how she computed cancellation rates by hand for apprentices in
programs that she felt were not doing an adequate job of training
apprentices to see if her hypotheses were correct. In the absence of
performance information, directors and staff in federally-monitored states
reported that a variety of factors dictated which programs to review.
These included size, newness, location, date of the last review, sponsor's
cooperativeness, as well as the location of staff resources.

In addition to not using program data to target reviews, Labor has not
collected and consistently entered into its database information about why
apprentices cancel out of programs, although its database was designed to
include such information and having it could help target reviews.
Officials told us that voluntary cancellation or transfers to another
program were at times associated with program quality, while other
nonvoluntary reasons, such as illness or military service, were not.
Currently, recording the reason for an apprentice's cancellation in the
database is an optional field. We found that no reason was recorded for 60
percent of the cancellations and the remaining 40 percent did not
effectively capture the reasons for leaving. Of the 18 reasons entered,
the most common reasons were "Unknown," "Voluntarily Quit,"
"Unsatisfactory Performance," "Discharged/Released," and "Cancelled with
the Occupation," some of which did not provide useful information to
target reviews. Also, other entries were close duplicates of one another,
such as "left for related employment" and "left for other employment."

Labor also treats as optional data entries for its equal employment
opportunity reviews: including the date of the last review, compliance
status, status of corrective actions, and other information that would
improve the efficiency of managing reviews. As a result, such data were
available for about 5 percent of programs in Labor's database in fiscal
year 2004. Without this information, it is more difficult to determine
when programs had their last EEO review and to readily identify programs
with known problems.

Labor's Data Base Does Not Meet the Needs of Apprenticeship Directors and
Other Stakeholders

Despite many technical upgrades, Labor's database hasn't provided
information that meets the needs of its federal directors or the needs of
other stakeholders. While acknowledging that Labor's database has been
updated and improved, 22 out of the 23 directors of apprenticeship
programs and their monitoring staff have expressed dissatisfaction with
the present system. One complained of "daily" changes to the data fields
without being informed of "why or when they will change." Expressing the
desire to select and sort data on any field and generate unique reports in
context with all available data, another concluded, "In short, we need a
lot of flexibility with database reports that we don't have at this time."
Many federal apprenticeship directors made recommendations for improving
the database. In general, what state directors wanted most was a system
that was stable, user friendly, and that would allow them to produce
customized reports to better oversee the apprenticeship programs in their
states. The list below shows those potential improvements endorsed by more
than half of the state apprenticeship directors:

o  	Increase the timeliness of notifications to state and regional offices
for changes to RAIS (e.g., provide for more frequent communication), (22
of 23 surveyed states).

o  	Simplify instruction and procedures for producing reports (18 of 23
surveyed states).

o  	Allow production of customized state and regional reports by type of
industry (18 of 23 surveyed states).

o  	Allow production of customized state and regional reports by sponsor
type (17 of 23) and occupational type (17 of 23 surveyed states).

o  Improve the frequency of RAIS training (17 of 23 surveyed states).

o  Improve the quality of RAIS training (16 of 23 surveyed states).

o  	Simplify instructions and procedures for inputting and updating data
(16 of 23 surveyed states).

o  	Increase available coding options to explain why apprentices leave the
program (14 of 23 surveyed states).

o  	Allow production of customized state and regional reports by sex of
apprentice and race of apprentice (14 of 23 surveyed states).

OATELS has recently purchased software that enables users to extract data
from Labor's databases in order to produce customized reports. Purchased
originally for the Secretary of Labor's use, Labor Information Technology
and OATELS officials said they foresaw the software's utility for many
programs and therefore decided to purchase licenses for apprenticeship
field staff. However, OATELS has not necessarily taken steps to ensure
field staff will be able to make optimal use of the software. About half
the directors in federally-monitored states did not know the

software was available or what it was. Although the software was
demonstrated at a directors' meeting in 2004, several couldn't recall the
demonstration and others were not in attendance. Moreover, two of the
directors lacked basic hardware, such as a high-speed cable needed to
support the software. In fact, one director told us he was working from
his home because his office didn't have such basics as a cable hook-up for
his computer. Even if such obstacles are surmounted, the new system may
not meet the staffs' data needs. Two directors who were already attempting
to use the software reported to us that it did not allow them to select
information using factors that would be most useful to them, such as
statelevel data on apprenticeship programs. In addition, Labor could or
would not supply us with formal documentation describing its plans to
implement the software or its vision of how the software would be used by
its staff. Labor also reported that because of budget constraints and the
easy use of the new software, it had no plans to provide training. Without
such plans, Labor's commitment to the full implementation and future
financing of the program is questionable.

Labor has infrequently reviewed states to which it has delegated oversight
responsibility. This includes both quality reviews and EEO reviews to
assure that these states are in compliance with federal rules for
overseeing apprenticeship programs and also adhering to equal employment
opportunity requirements. Moreover, states that have been reviewed in
recent years reported that they had little utility for helping them manage
their programs, in part, because of the little feedback they received. In
terms of providing information to Congress and others, Labor does not
collect from these states information that is readily available on
apprenticeships by occupation or industry, even for occupations where
shortages of skilled workers are anticipated.

  Labor Has Reviewed Council-Monitored States Infrequently, Provided Little
  Feedback, and Not Collected Data That Would Allow for a National Picture of
  Apprenticeships

Labor Has Reviewed Council-Monitored States Infrequently in Recent Years

Agency records indicate that Labor conducted only three quality and EEO
reviews of council-monitored states in calendar years 2002 and 2003, and
none in 2004 but has scheduled seven for 2005. State apprenticeship
directors confirmed that reviews are infrequent. Twelve of the 27
directors in council-monitored states reported that OATELS had conducted
reviews of their programs less frequently than once every 3 years and
several responded that reviews had not taken place in the last 9 to 12
years. An additional five directors reported their states had never been
reviewed or that they were unaware if such reviews had taken place. The
remaining

10 reported reviews took place in their states at least once every 3
years. (See fig. 3.) While neither statute nor regulation specifies the
frequency with which OATELS should conduct such reviews, they constitute
an important mechanism for ensuring that state laws conform to
requirements necessary for Labor's recognition of a state's registered
apprenticeship program.

Figure 3: Frequency of Federal Reviews of Council-monitored States

                              Number of states 15

                                       12

State directors reported that the Quality Reviews and the EEO Reviews had
limited utility for helping them manage their programs. For example, only
about half of them reported that the quality reviews were at least
moderately useful for helping them determine their compliance with federal
regulation. (See fig. 4.) Results were similar for the EEO reviews. (See
fig. 5.) For example, slightly less than half of state directors reported
that EEO reviews were at least moderately useful in helping them determine
their compliance with federal EEO regulations. Some directors said reviews
would be more useful if they focused on reviewing programrelated
activities in the state. Eight of the directors suggested that Labor focus
more on state and local conditions and the performance of apprenticeship
programs instead of focusing only on whether councilmonitored states
comply with federal standards. For example, one

                                      10 5

0 Once a year or more Once every 2 years Once every 3 years Less frequently than
                                 every 3 years

Didn't know

Source: GAO survey of apprenticeship directors in states that do their own
                                  monitoring.

Officials in Most Council-Monitored States Reported Reviews Were Not Very
Useful, in Part Because of Limited Feedback

director reported the feedback he received on EEO activities was unrelated
to the racial composition of the state. Also, some suggested reviews could
provide opportunities for federal officials to provide assistance and
share knowledge about strategies that other states have found useful.

Figure 4: Council-monitored States' Rankings of the Usefulness of Federal
Quality Reviews

Number of states

16

14

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Making informed Evaluating Assessing how Completing decisions about
strengths and well programs reports about programs weaknesses of comply
with your state's programs federal program regulations

Very great or great extent
Moderate extent
Some, or little or no extent
Don't know
Source: GAO survey of apprenticeship directors in council-monitored
states.

Figure 5: Council-monitored States' Rankings of the Usefulness of EEO
Reviews

Number of states

16

14

12

11

10

8

6

4

2

0

Making informed Evaluating Assessing how Completing reports decisions
about strengths and well programs about your state's programs weaknesses
of comply with federal program programs regulations

Very great or great extent

Moderate extent

Some, or little or no extent

Don't know

Source: GAO survey of apprenticeship directors in council-monitored
states.

While directors had a number of ideas for improving the usefulness of
quality and EEO reviews, many noted that Labor provided limited or no
feedback as part of the review process. For example, one said his state
agency received a brief letter from Labor stating only that the state was
in compliance with federal regulations. Two others said their agencies
received no documentation that a review had in fact been conducted, even
though in one of these cases the state had made requests for the review
findings. Officials in one state said feedback from their last review was
positive and indicated no problems, but a few years later, OATELS took
steps to get their state apprenticeship council derecognized with no prior
notice or subsequent review.

Labor Has Not Collected Data That Would Allow for a National Picture of
Apprenticeships

  Construction Apprenticeship Completion Rates and Wages Vary by Program Sponsor

Labor collects aggregate counts of apprentices for most council-monitored
states and has not developed strategies to collect more detailed
information that would allow for a description of apprenticeships at the
national level, even for those where shortages of skilled workers are
anticipated. Of the 28 council-monitored states, 20 have their own data
system and do not report data to Labor's apprenticeship database. These 20
states represent about 68 percent of the nation's apprentices. Labor and
council-monitored states have differing opinions about why there are
separate data systems. Labor officials told us that, as they were
developing their database, they conducted outreach to council-monitored
states. Officials from these states say otherwise. They also said that
participating in Labor's database would be an onerous process or that
Labor's system did not meet their state's information needs and,
therefore, they had invested the time and money to develop their own
systems. Because many of these systems are not compatible with Labor's,
the agency collects only total counts of apprentices and programs from
these 20 states, which it uses for its official reports.

While incompatible data systems may suggest that it would be difficult or
costly to obtain more than aggregate counts, in collecting data for this
report, we found many of the council-monitored states-including 10 with
large numbers of apprentices-were both willing and capable of providing us
data on apprentices by industry and by occupation as well as information
on completion rates, completion times, and some wage data for occupations
that we had specified. In fact, one state reported that it had designed
its apprenticeship database to collect all information required by Labor's
database and had offered to report these data to Labor electronically-but
Labor had not taken steps to accept this offer. Nevertheless, as one
director pointed out, having a unified data picture is central to OATELS'
oversight as well as its promotional activities and, as many agree, such a
system would promote the health of the registered apprenticeship system.

Construction apprentices in programs sponsored jointly by employers and
unions (joint programs) generally completed at a higher rate and in
greater numbers than those enrolled in programs sponsored by employers
alone (non-joint programs). More importantly, despite growth in
construction program enrollment, there has been a decline over time in
completion rates for both types of programs. Completion rates declined
from 59 percent for apprentices enrolling in 1994 to 37 percent for
apprentices enrolling in 1998. It is difficult to know what factors
underlie this trend because, as noted earlier, Labor does not
systematically record

information about why apprentices leave programs. Apprentices who
completed programs within 6 years tended to finish earlier than expected.
In addition, wages for joint apprentices were generally higher at the
start and upon completion of their programs. Data received from 10
councilmonitored states that do not report to Labor's database generally
mirrored these findings.

Nearly Half of Apprentices in Joint Programs Completed Their
Apprenticeships Compared with about a Third in Nonjoint Programs

Completion rates were generally higher for apprentices in joint programs
than for those in non-joint programs. Of the apprentices who entered
programs between 1994 and 1998, about 47 percent of apprentices in joint
programs and 30 percent of apprentices in non-joint programs completed
their apprenticeships by 2004. For five consecutive classes (1994-1998) of
apprentices in Labor's database, completion rates calculated after 6
years, were higher for joint programs, as shown in figure 6.2 The data we
received from 10 additional states that do not report into Labor's
database showed similar trends, with joint apprentices having higher
completion rates. For complete data that we received from these 10 states,
see appendix II.

2Most apprenticeship programs in construction require 4 years to complete.
In our analysis, we allowed for 6 years, to account for slow work periods
and other delays.

Figure 6: Completion Rates after 6 Years for Apprentices Entering
Construction Programs in FY 1994 through 1998

Percentage of apprentices

Completed Cancelled

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Respondents

Joint Non-joint Sources: GAO analysis of RAIS database.

For the programs in Labor's database, this higher completion rate for
joint apprenticeship programs was true for all but 1 of the 15 largest
individual trades which collectively account for 93 percent of active
apprentices in construction. (See fig. 7.) It should be noted that among
the trades, themselves, there were substantial variations in completion
rates, often due to the nature of work environment and other constraints,
according to federal and state officials. For example, roofing programs,
which have low completion rates, face unpredictable weather and seasonal
work flows.

Figure 7: Completion Rates after 6 Years by Occupation for Apprentices Who
Began Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs between FY 1994 and 1998

Percentage of apprentices completing in 6 years

                                       61

60

                                       59

                         Electrician Carpenter Plumber

worker

Pipe fitter RooferStructural steel Bricklayer PainterOperating engineer

Heating and airconditioner

                                  Cement mason

                      Millwright Construction craftlaborer

e

Insulation worker

workerSheet metal

                       installation and servicRespondents

Joint apprentices

Non-joint apprentices

Source: GAO analysis of RAIS database.

Officials said that joint programs have higher completion rates because
they are more established and better funded. For some joint programs,
these additional resources stem in part from union members paying a small
portion of their paychecks into a general training fund that is used to
help defray some of the training costs for apprentices. In addition, they
suggested that, because unions tend to have a network of affiliates spread
across an area, they are more likely to find work for participating
apprentices in other areas when work is slow in a particular area. Local
union chapters often have portability agreements with one another other,

which help to facilitate such transfers. Officials also said these
programs provide mentoring and other social supports.

While Enrollments Increased, Completion Rates Declined in General for the
Period Examined

Enrollments in construction apprenticeship programs more than doubled from
1994 to 1998, increasing from 20,670 construction apprentices to 47,487.3
(See fig. 8.) Meanwhile, completion rates declined from 59 percent for the
class of 1994 to 37 percent for the class of 19984. This decline for these
cohorts held for both joint and non-joint programs. (See fig. 9.)
Completion rates for joint apprentices dropped from nearly 63 percent to
42 percent, and from 46 percent to 26 percent for non-joint apprentices.
This trend was consistent across different occupations as well, with most
experiencing declines.

3Enrollment increased through fiscal year 2000, reaching a total of
59,625. Since then, there have been fewer apprentices enrolling in 2001
through 2004, with 36,325 apprentices enrolling in fiscal year 2004.

4Apprentices entering programs during 1994 to 1998 would be expected to
completed these programs by 2000 to 2004 unless they dropped out.

Figure 8: Enrollment for Apprentices in Joint and Non-joint Construction
Programs,
FY 1994 through 1998

Enrollment (in thousands)
40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Fiscal year

Joint Non-joint

Source: GAO analysis of RAIS database.

Figure 9: Trends in Completion Rates after 6 Years for Apprentices in
Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs Entering Programs in FY 1994
through 1998

Completion rate (percentage)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Fiscal year

Joint Non-joint

Source: GAO analysis of RAIS database.

Because Labor does not systematically record the explanations that
apprentices offer for canceling out of programs, it is difficult to
determine what may lie behind this downward trend. Labor suggested that
some apprentices may choose to acquire just enough training to make them
marketable in the construction industry in lieu of completing a program
and achieving journey status. While we cannot confirm this hypothesis, we
did find that those apprentices who did cancel chose to do so after
receiving over a year of training. Joint apprentices cancelled after 92
weeks on average and non-joint apprentices cancelled after 85 weeks on
average. Other reasons offered included a decline in work ethic, the
emphasis placed by high schools on preparing students for college and the
corresponding under-emphasis on preparation for the trades, and a lack of
work in the construction industry. We cannot verify the extent to which
unemployment played a role influencing outcomes, but, according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for construction
increased overall from 6.2 percent to 8.4 percent between 2000 to 2004,
despite the predictions of future worker shortages in construction.

Apprentices in Both Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs Tended to
Complete Their Programs Early

Those apprentices who completed construction programs within 6 years
tended to finish earlier than they were expected to, with apprentices in
non-joint programs finishing a bit sooner than their joint counterparts.
On average, joint apprentices completed their programs 12 weeks early and
non-joint apprentices completed 35 weeks early. This trend was similar
across the largest trades in terms of enrollment as shown in table 1
below. This may be due to the willingness of program sponsors to grant
apprentices credit for previous work or classroom experience that was
directly related to their apprenticeship requirements.

Table 1: Differences between Actual and Expected Completion Time for
Apprentices in Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs in Weeks

Joint apprentices Non-joint apprentices

                 Actual Expected                   Actual Expected 
                  weeks weeks                       weeks weeks    
                     to   to complete Difference       to       to Difference 
               complete                          complete complete 
Electrician      237           240  3 weeks        179      211   32 weeks 
                                        early                           early 
    Carpenter                          22 weeks                    
                    188           210      early      184      208   24 weeks 
                                                                        early 
     Plumber                           14 weeks                    
                    238           252                 171      220   49 weeks 
                                           early                        early 

                     Source: GAO analysis of RAIS database.

Starting Wages and Wages upon Completion in Joint Construction Programs
Were Higher on Average than Those for Apprentices in Non-joint
Construction Programs

Apprentices in joint construction programs were paid higher wages at the
start of their apprenticeships and were scheduled to receive higher wages
upon completion of their programs. In 2004, the first year in which Labor
collected information on starting wages, apprentices in joint programs
earned $12.28 per hour while non-joint apprentices earned $9.90 at the
start of their apprenticeships. These differences in wages were more
pronounced at the journey level, that is, upon completion, with
apprentices in joint programs scheduled to earn journey-level wages of
$24.19 as compared with $17.85 for those in non-joint programs. As shown
in figure 10, joint apprentices generally earned higher wages across the
15 trades with the largest numbers of construction apprentices. There were
three trades-carpenter, structural steel worker, and cement mason-for
which starting wages were higher for non-joint apprentices. For
journey-level wages there was only one trade for which wages were higher
for non-joint apprentices-that of millwright. Officials we spoke with
commonly attributed this distinction in wages to the bargaining process
associated with joint programs. Data from the 10 additional states
(outside Labor's database) whose data we examined showed a similar
pattern-with joint apprentices earning higher wages. (See app. II.)

  Figure 10: Average Wages for Apprentices in Joint and Non-Joint Construction
                              Programs in FY 2004

Average starting wages for apprentices (dollars per hour)

                                      15.4

rElectrician Carpente

Plumber Pipe fitterSheet metal

                            RooferBricklayer Painter

Operatingengineer Construction craftlaborer n

Insulation worker

Cement maso installationand servicHeating and aircondition

                                  Millwrighte

worker workerStructuralsteel

              er Average scheduled journey wage (dollars per hour)

                                 25.8 25.3 26.6

eMillwright

                         Electrician Carpenter Plumber

Pipe fitterSheet metal

installation and servicInsulationworkerHeating and air conditioner

                               Bricklayer Roofer

worker workerStructuralsteel

                                    Painter

Operatingengineer Construction craft

                              aborer Cement masonl

Wages

Joint apprentices

Non-joint apprentices Source: GAO analysis of RAIS database.

  Conclusions

Recommendations

As a small program with finite resources tasked with an important mission,
it is incumbent on Labor's Apprenticeship Office to leverage the tools at
its disposal to carry out its oversight, all the more so during a period
of tight budgets. Labor's responsibility for assuring that registered
apprenticeship programs meet appropriate standards is no small charge,
given the thousands of programs in operation today. In terms of the
programs it directly monitors, Labor has not made optimal use of the
information it collects to target resources. The failure to do so limits
the agency's ability to target its oversight activities to address and
remedy areas where there may be significant need, particularly the
construction trades where completion rates are declining. Underscoring
this point is the fact that apprenticeship directors in
federally-monitored states cannot get easy access to the data in the form
of customized reports. Irrespective of distinctions between apprentice
outcomes for joint and non-joint programs, without better use of its data,
Labor is still not in a position to assess programs on their individual
merits. Given the relatively limited number of staff available for field
visits, by not using the program data it has, Labor misses opportunities
to more efficiently use its staff.

With regard to states with council-monitored apprenticeship programs,
Labor's oversight practices do not necessarily ensure that those states'
activities comply with federal standards for oversight because the
Apprenticeship Office has only sporadically assessed their operations.
Moreover, to the extent that the federal office does not provide useful
feedback to the states when it does conduct reviews, states may lose
opportunities to improve programs under their jurisdiction. Finally,
because Labor does not seek much information beyond aggregate numbers from
a majority of council-monitored states, policymakers lose an opportunity
to gain perspective and insight for aligning workforce training with
national needs, specifically for key occupations within construction that
are likely to be faced with shortages of skilled workers in the near
future.

We recommend that the Secretary of Labor take steps to (1) better utilize
information in Labor's database, such as indicators of program
performance, for management oversight, particularly for apprenticeship
programs in occupations with expected future labor shortages; (2) develop
a cost-effective strategy for collecting data from council-monitored
states; (3) conduct Labor's reviews of apprenticeship activities in states
that regulate their own programs on a regular basis to ensure that state
activities are in accord with Labor's requirements for recognition of

  Agency Comments

apprenticeship programs; and (4) offer substantive feedback to states from
its reviews.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor for review
and comment. Labor provided written comments on the draft report that are
reproduced in appendix V. Labor concurred with our recommendations and has
already taken steps to obtain data on apprenticeships from some
council-monitored states and to regularly review activities in these
states. Further, Labor stated it plans to use the data to better target
the performance of the apprenticeship programs that OATELS directly
registers and oversees, and to provide improved feedback to states that
register and oversee their own apprenticeship programs.

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
distribution of this report until 14 days after the date of this letter.
At that
time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor and
other
interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's
Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

Please contact me on 512-7215 or [email protected] if you or your staff have
any questions about this report. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are
listed in appendix VI.

Sigurd R. Nilsen
Director, Education, Workforce,

and Income Security Issues

                       Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which the
U.S. Department of Labor monitors the operations and outcomes of
registered apprenticeship programs in the states where it has direct
oversight, (2) its oversight activities for council-monitored states, and
(3) outcomes for construction apprentices in programs sponsored jointly
by employers and unions in relation to those sponsored by employers
alone.

To carry out these objectives, we surveyed OATELS officials in charge of
apprenticeship programs in 23 federally monitored states and state
apprenticeship directors in 28 states, including the District of Columbia,
where state apprenticeship councils oversee programs. We used two
surveys-one for federally- monitored states and one for council
monitored states-to obtain national information on OATELS' monitoring
and oversight activities. We focused only on apprentices in the civilian
sector of the economy and did not include military or prison-based
programs. We asked questions designed to determine the amount of
resources devoted to oversight, the frequency of oversight activities, and
the outcomes from these activities. The surveys were conducted using
self-administered electronic questionnaires posted on the World Wide
Web. We pretested our surveys with a total of five federally-monitored and
council-monitored state officials to determine if the surveys were
understandable and if the information was feasible to collect. We then
refined the questionnaire as appropriate. We sent e-mail notifications to
all
federally-monitored and council-monitored state officials on January 5,
2005. We then sent each potential respondent a unique password and
username by e-mail on January 13, 2005, to ensure that only members of
the target population could participate in the appropriate survey. To
encourage respondents to complete the surveys, we sent e-mail messages
to prompt each nonrespondent approximately 1 1/2 weeks after the initial
e-mail message and a final e-mail reminder on February 7, 2005. We also
called nonrespondents to encourage them to complete the survey. We
closed the surveys on March 18, 2005. We received responses from all
23 federally-monitored and 27 of 28 council-monitored state officials
including the District of Columbia. (See table 2.) Copies of the surveys
are
provided in appendices III and IV.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

                   Table 2: Survey Numbers and Response Rates

                             Respondents Surveys conducted   Surveys received 
              Federally-monitored states                 23 
                Council-monitored states                    
            and the District of Columbia                 28 

Source: GAO.

To examine the outcomes for apprentices in the construction industry, we
analyzed data from Labor's RAIS database. In calculating completion rates,
we constructed five cohorts based on when they enrolled in their programs;
we had cohorts for fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998. We then
considered the status of these cohorts 6 years after they enrolled to
determine if they had completed, cancelled, or remained in training. Our
analysis of wage data focused on data collected in fiscal year 2004, the
first full year that Labor began collecting such information. We assessed
the reliability of the RAIS database by reviewing relevant information on
the database, interviewing relevant OATELS officials, and conducting our
own testing of the database. This testing included examining the
completeness of the data, performing data reliability checks, and
assessing the internal controls of the data. Based on this information and
our analysis, we determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for
the purposes of our report.

Because Labor's RAIS database does not contain data from all states, we
supplemented these data with data from 10 council-monitored states that do
not report to this database. We selected these states based on the number
of apprentices they had and whether their data were in an electronic
format that would facilitate extracting and sending these data to us. We
submitted a data request that asked for selected information on
enrollment, completion, and wages for the 10 largest apprenticeship
occupations to these states and received data from all of them. We
determined that these data were reliable for our purposes. We did not
combine these data with those from RAIS; we used them as a means of
comparison.

To learn more about the oversight of apprenticeship programs and their
outcomes, we conducted site visits to four states-New York, California,
Texas, and Washington. These states represented both federal and
councilmonitored states and had large numbers (from a high of about 52,000
to a low of 6,500) of construction apprentices. On these site visits, we
interviewed relevant federal and state officials along with joint and non-

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

joint program sponsors. We also toured facilities in two states where
certain apprentices are trained.

Throughout the engagement we interviewed relevant Labor officials and
experts that have researched apprenticeship programs and reviewed relevant
past reports and evaluations of these programs. We conducted our review
from August 2004 through July 2005 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken to Complete, and Wages for
Construction Apprentices in Council-Monitored States

Table 3: Percentages of Apprentices Completing Joint and Non-joint
Construction Programs as Reported by Selected Council-monitored States for
Fiscal Years 1997-2004

Californiaa Kentuckyb Marylandc Massachusettsd Minnesotad

                                     Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Non-Joint

          Electrician         48   32   60   38   52   35   63   38   77  
           Carpenter          22   12   20   0    26   27   48   0    20  
            Plumber           46   25   65   67   45   10   77   25   59  
          Pipe fitter         43   20   89   0    66   0    -    -    -     - 
      Sheet metal worker      55   19   58   0    50   56   -    -    -     - 
    Structural steel worker   35   -    26   -    33   -    -    -    -     - 
          Bricklayer          28   0    -    56   37   8    -    -    -     - 
            Roofer            7    8    35   -    0    -    -    -    -     - 
            Painter           27   15   33   -    18   -    -    -    -     - 
      Operating engineer      53   0    50   -    47   -    -    -    -     - 

Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken to Complete, and Wages for
Construction Apprentices in Council-Monitored States

e

                New York Oregon Virginiaf Washingtong Wisconsinh

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint-Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint Joint

NonjointJoint

     68      12      65      -      42      20      62      38     86   
     36      28      20      -      47      16      32      21     69   
     53      15      49      -      67      25      94      22     75   
     90      13      46      -      58      22      70      -      82   
     70       0      41      -      10      27      37      0      63   
     61       0      41      -      50       7      41      -      -        - 
     37      11      44      -      16      25      33      -      51   
     21       8       5      -       -       -       6      -      43   
     25       0      25      -       -       0      11      -      47   
     65       0      29      -      60       -      52      7      81       - 

Source: Data were provided by selected council-monitored states.

Note: Data include apprentices entering program from October 1, 1997,
through September 30, 1998, and completing before October 1, 2004.

aCalifornia reported no structural steel worker non-joint programs.

bKentucky reported that no apprentices entered bricklayer joint programs
or carpenter, structural steel worker, roofer, painter, and operating
engineer non-joint programs from October 1, 1997, through September 30,
1998.

cMaryland reported that no apprentices entered structural steel worker,
roofer, painter, and operating engineer non-joint programs from October 1,
1997, through September 30, 1998.

dMassachusetts and Minnesota reported data for electrician, carpenter, and
plumber programs only. We told state directors they could do this in order
to save resources and because these three fields represent over half of
all apprentices in the construction trades.

eOregon reported that no non-joint apprenticeship programs are registered
in the state.

fVirginia reported that no apprentices entered roofer and painter joint
programs, and roofer and operating engineer non-joint programs from
October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998.

gWashington reported no pipe fitter, structural steel worker, bricklayer,
roofer, and painter non-joint programs.

hWisconsin reported no structural steel worker joint or non-joint programs
and no operating engineer non-joint programs.

      Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken to Complete, and Wages for
              Construction Apprentices in Council-Monitored States

Table 4: Average Number of Weeks Spent to Complete Joint and Non-joint
Construction Apprenticeship Programs as Reported by Selected
Council-monitored States

Californiaa Kentuckyb Marylandc Massachusettsc Minnesotad

                                     Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint

          Electrician         225   218   253   177   -   -   -   -   208  
           Carpenter          188   140   219    -    -   -   -   -   191   - 
            Plumber           232   203   247   151   -   -   -   -   213  
          Pipe fitter         231   191   234    -    -   -   -   -    -    - 
      Sheet metal worker      224   217   226    -    -   -   -   -    -    - 
    Structural steel worker   167    -    156    -    -   -   -   -    -    - 
          Bricklayer          140    -     -    149   -   -   -   -    -    - 
            Roofer            192   188   184    -    -   -   -   -    -    - 
            Painter           152   119   234    -    -   -   -   -    -    - 
      Operating engineer      183    -    150    -    -   -   -   -    -    - 

Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken to Complete, and Wages for
Construction Apprentices in Council-Monitored States

fh

                New Yorke Oregon Virginiag Washington Wisconsini

Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint

     290     219     205     -     240     166     233    209    256      264 
     165     213     176     -     169     234     201    184    207      204 
     262     247     211     -     254     168     234    161    274      280 
     209      -      198     -     214     201     247     -     259      216 
     217     52      217     -     214     104     219     -     264      244 
     162      -      188     -     154     196     149     -      -         - 
     155     174     171     -     159     215     161     -     173      139 
     197     174     146     -      -       -      121     -     165       -- 
     166      -      164     -      -       -      115     -     208      157 
     194      -      261     -     149      -      198     -     140        - 

Source: Data were provided by selected council-monitored states.

Note: Data include apprentices entering program from October 1, 1997,
through September 30, 1998, and completing before October 1, 2004.

aCalifornia reported no structural steel worker non-joint programs and no
completers from bricklayer and operating engineer non-joint programs.

bKentucky reported that no apprentices entered bricklayer joint programs
and carpenter, pipe fitter, structural steel, sheet metal worker, roofer,
painter, and operating engineer non-joint programs from October 1, 1997,
through September 30, 1998.

cMaryland and Massachusetts do not track these data.

dMinnesota reported data for electrician, carpenter, and plumber programs
only and reported no completions for carpenters in non-joint programs. We
told state directors they could report only for these three fields in
order to save resources and because these three fields represent over half
of all apprentices in the construction trades.

eNew York reported no completers for pipe fitter, structural steel worker,
painter, and operating engineer non-joint programs.

fOregon reported no non-joint apprenticeship programs are registered in
the state.

gVirginia reported no apprentices entered roofer and painter joint
programs and roofer, painter and operating engineer non-joint programs
from October 1, 1997, through September 30, 1998.

hWashington reported no pipe fitter, structural steel worker, bricklayer,
operating engineer and roofer non-joint programs. Also, no apprentices
completed sheet metal worker and painter non-joint programs.

iWisconsin reported no structural steel worker programs and no roofer and
operating engineer nonjoint programs.

      Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken to Complete, and Wages for
              Construction Apprentices in Council-Monitored States

Table 5: Mean Hourly Wage Rates for Beginning Apprentices in Joint and
Non-joint Construction Programs as Reported by Selected Council-monitored
States, Fiscal Year 2004

Californiaa Kentucky Marylandb Massachusettsb Minnesotac

                                     Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint

         Electrician         $13.50 $12.28 $9.31 $6.41 -- - - - $11.81 $11.06 
          Carpenter           15.16 14.11   8.05 8.31  -  - - -  13.46   9.63 
           Plumber            13.82 12.85  12.14 7.54  -  - - -  14.69  14.36 
         Pipe fitter          11.80 13.10  12.14 7.08  -  - - -      -      - 
      Sheet metal worker      12.64 10.85  11.79 7.08  -  - - -      -      - 
Structural steel worker    17.24   -    13.56 7.08  -  - - -      -      - 
          Bricklayer          11.22 11.40  10.59 9.82  -  - - -      -      - 
            Roofer            11.90 10.96  10.12 7.08  -  - - -      -      - 
           Painter            11.31 10.63   9.86 8.00  -  - - -      -      - 
      Operating engineer      20.30 18.42  12.50 7.08  -  - - -      -      - 

Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken to Complete, and Wages for
Construction Apprentices in Council-Monitored States

     New Yorkb       dOregon       Virginiae     fWashington     Wisconsinb   
       Joint          Joint          Joint     Joint Non-joint          Joint 
     Non-joint      Non-joint      Non-joint                        Non-joint 
        - -          $9.81 -      $9.50 $8.08   $11.64 $11.38             - - 
        - -          11.03 -       8.22 9.68     14.67 12.67              - - 
        - -           9.68 -       8.70 8.59     12.67 10.63              - - 
        - -          11.03 -       9.75 9.36      13.64 --                - - 
        - -           8.83 -       9.43 8.05     13.11 7.61               - - 
        - -          18.51 -        9.49 -         17.74 -                - - 
        - -          13.35 -       8.02 9.47       12.62 -                - - 
        - -          10.03 -            - 7.44     13.28 -                - - 
        - -          11.26 -           - 10.95   11.50 8.33               - - 
        - -          17.43 -        10.99 -      15.95 15.37              - - 

Source: Data were provided by selected council-monitored states.

Note: Data includes wages for apprentices who began programs on October 1,
2003, through September 30, 2004.

aCalifornia reported no structural steel worker non-joint programs.

bMaryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin do not collect wage
data.

cMinnesota reported data for electrician, carpenter, and plumber programs
only. We told state directors they could do this in order to save
resources and because these three fields represent over half of all
apprentices in the construction trades.

dOregon reported no non-joint apprenticeship programs are registered in
the state.

eVirginia reported no roofer joint programs and no operating engineer
non-joint programs. Also, no apprentices entered painter joint programs
and structural steel worker non-joint programs that year.

fWashington reported no pipe fitter, structural steel worker, bricklayer,
painter, and roofer non-joint programs as of September 30, 2004.

      Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken to Complete, and Wages for
              Construction Apprentices in Council-Monitored States

Table 6: Mean Hourly Wage Rates for Apprentices Achieving Journey Status
in Joint and Non-joint Construction Programs as Reported by Selected
Council-monitored States, Fiscal Year 2004

Californiaa Kentucky Marylandb Massachusettsb Minnesotac

                                     Joint

Nonjoint Joint Nonjoint Joint

Non
joint Joint Non-joint Joint

                                    Nonjoint

         Electrician        $34.98 $30.35 $20.74 $12.81 - - - - $26.62 $25.31 
          Carpenter          32.45 32.48   16.57 15.00  - - - -  23.20  29.38 
           Plumber           31.80 30.91   24.28 14.00  - - - -  32.65  30.56 
         Pipe fitter         32.40   -     24.28 12.00  - - - -      -      - 
      Sheet metal worker     32.50 31.98   23.58 12.00  - - - -      -      - 
Structural steel worker   31.35   --    22.68 12.00  - - - -      -      - 
          Bricklayer         29.97 30.28   21.17 16.98  - - - -      -      - 
            Roofer           25.92 24.89   18.40 12.00  - - - -      -      - 
           Painter           30.98 29.08   17.20 16.00  - - - -      -      - 
      Operating engineer     34.34   --    21.03 12.00  - - - -      -      - 

Appendix II: Completion Rates, Time Taken to Complete, and Wages for
Construction Apprentices in Council-Monitored States

                                       df

                New Yorkb Oregon Virginiae Washington Wisconsin

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint Joint

Nonjoint Joint

NonjointJoint

    -    -    $23.57    -    $16.54    $13.34    $24.38    $28.46    -      - 
    -    -     20.06    -     11.39     10.73       24.46   22.04    -      - 
    -    -     23.38    -     17.15     14.47       26.68   26.52    -      - 
    -    -     25.46    -     17.38     13.53       27.07     -      -      - 
    -    -     19.74    -     14.85     11.15       25.58   18.12    -      - 
    -    -     28.47    -     13.87       -         27.30     -      -      - 
    -    -     26.70    -     14.75     18.62       25.23     -      -      - 
    -    -     19.42    -       -        --         22.14     -      -      - 
    -    -     18.77    -       -        --         20.44   18.51    -      - 
    -    -     22.67    -     18.73       -         25.52   25.63    -      - 

Source: Data were provided by selected council-monitored states.

Note: Data include wages for apprentices who achieved journey status that
year.

aCalifornia reported no structural steel worker non-joint programs. Also,
no apprentices completed pipe fitter and operating engineer non-joint
programs that year.

bMaryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin do not collect wage
data.

cMinnesota reported data for electrician, carpenter, and plumber programs
only. We told state directors they could do this in order to save
resources and because these three fields represent over half of all
apprentices in the construction trades.

dOregon reported no non-joint apprenticeship programs are registered in
the state.

eVirginia reported no roofer and painter joint programs, and no roofer,
painter, and operating engineer non-joint programs, and no apprentices
completed joint painter and non-joint structural steel worker programs as
of September 30, 2004.

fWashington reported no pipe fitter, structural steel worker, bricklayer,
and roofer non-joint programs as of September 30, 2004.

Appendix III: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
Federally-Monitored States

Q1. At the close of federal fiscal year (FFY) 2004 (September 30, 2004),
what was the total number of registered apprentices in your state?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean            Median   Minimum      Maximum        respondents 
4,792             3437          271       20,496              23 

Q1a. At the close of FFY 2004, what was the total number of registered
apprentices in construction trades in your state?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean            Median   Minimum      Maximum        respondents 
3,057             2226          207       10,396              22 

      Q1b. At the close of FFY 2004, what was the total number of approved
         apprenticeship programs in construction trades in your state?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                      84           22          844               23 

Q2. During FFY 2004, how many full-time equivalency (FTE) apprenticeship
training staff were employed by OATELS to monitor and oversee
apprenticeship programs in your state?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                       2            0            6               22 

Q3. Of the FTE apprenticeship training staff reported above, approximately
what percentage of their time was spent in the field monitoring and
overseeing apprenticeship programs or providing technical assistance
related to monitoring and oversight during FFY 2004?

                                                                       Number 
                                                                           of 
0 - 19%  20 - 39%  40 - 59%  60 - 79%  80 - 100%  Don't know   respondents 
                    6         5         4          2           1           23 

Q4. During FFY 2004, how many full-time equivalency (FTE) apprenticeship
training representative, field, and other nonadministrative staff were
employed by the state to monitor and oversee apprenticeship programs in
your state?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
0                   0            0            2               22 

      Appendix III: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
                           Federally-Monitored States

Q6. In your opinion, would the following updates or modifications improve
Registered Apprenticeship Information System's (RAIS) usefulness to your
state?

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                Yes No Don't know respondents

a. Increasing
timeliness of
notifying state
and regional
offices of
changes to
RAIS 22 1 023

b. Increasing
available
coding options
to explain why
apprentices
leave the
programs 14 7 2 23

c. Allowing
production of
customized
state or
regional reports
by sponsorship
type 17 2 423

d. Allowing
production of
customized
state or
regional reports
by industry
type 18 1 423

e. Allowing
production of
customized
state or
regional reports
by occupational
type 17 2 322

f. Allowing
production of
customized
state or
regional reports
by sex of
apprentices 14 1 8 23

      Appendix III: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
                           Federally-Monitored States

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                Yes No Don't know respondents

g. Allowing
production of
customized
state or
regional reports
by race of
apprentices 14 1 8 23

h. Simplifying
instructions
and procedures
for inputting
and updating
data 16 6 123

i. Simplifying
procedures
required to
produce
reports 18 3 2 23

j. Increasing frequency of RAIS training 17 1 5 23

k. Improving
quality of RAIS
training 16 3 4 23

l. Other 9 0 2 11

Q8. Did your state use WIA Governor's 15% State Set-Aside funds to support
new and/or established apprenticeship programs in FFY 2004?

                                                Number 
                                                    of 
Yes             No   Don't know         respondents 
                   15               5               23 

      Appendix III: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
                           Federally-Monitored States

Q9. Were WIA State Set-Aside funds used to support new and/or established
apprenticeship programs in your state in FFY 2004 to do any of the
following?

Yes, new Yes, established Number apprenticeship apprenticeship of programs
                                           programs No Don't know respondents

a. To provide
related
instruction or
other education
that satisfied
specific
apprenticeship
requirements 1 2 0 0 3

b. To provide
on-the-job
training 0 01 0 1

c. To
disseminate
information
about
apprenticeship
programs 0 10 0 1

d. To
encourage
entities to
sponsor and
register
additional or
new programs 1 0 1 0 2

e. Other 1 00 0 1

  Q11. For which of the following reasons did your state not use WIA Set-Aside
             Funds to support apprenticeship programs in FFY 2004?

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                Yes No Don't know respondents

a. Decision
makers gave
priority to other
programs. 11 0 6 17

b. Decision
makers did not
believe funds
could be used
to support new
apprenticeship
programs. 7 2 8 17

Appendix III: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
Federally-Monitored States

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                Yes No Don't know respondents

c. Decision
makers did not
believe funds
could be used
to support
established
apprenticeship
programs. 7 2 7 16

d. Decision
makers did not
believe funds
could be used
to provide
related
instruction or
other education
that satisfied
specific
apprenticeship
requirements. 6 2 9 17

e. Decision
makers did not
believe funds
could be used
to provide on
the-job training. 6 3 8 17

f. Decision
makers did not
believe funds
could be used
to disseminate
information
about
apprenticeship
programs. 5 2 10 17

g. Decision
makers did not
believe funds
could be used
to encourage
the recruitment
of entities to
sponsor and
register new
programs. 6 1 10 17

Appendix III: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
Federally-Monitored States

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                Yes No Don't know respondents

h. Decision
makers did not
establish
linkages
between the
state
apprenticeship
unit and unit(s)
responsible for
WIA. 11 2 417

i. Other 8 0 3 11

Q13. Were WIA funding sources other than State Set-Aside Funds used in
your state to support new and/or established apprenticeship programs in
FFY 2004?

                               Yes No Don't know

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

12 6 22

Q14. Other than State Set-Aside Funds, which of the following WIA funding
sources were used to support new and/or established apprenticeship
programs in FFY 2004?

                                                                  Yes, Number
                                                      Yes, new established of
                                  programs programs No Don't know respondents

a. Adult Funds 1 1 1 1 4

b. Dislocated
Worker Funds 0 1 1 2 4

c. Youth Funds 0 0 2 2 4

d. Other 0 2 013

Q16. Did your state establish linkages between WIA state unit and the
state apprenticeship unit in FFY 2004 for any of the following purposes?

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                Yes No Don't know respondents

a. Shared
decision
making 0 18 4 22

b. Shared
information
gathering 4 14 4 22

      Appendix III: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
                           Federally-Monitored States

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                Yes No Don't know respondents

c. Shared
information
dissemination,
including
presentations 7 11 4 22

d. Shared use
of educational
programs that
satisfy specific
apprenticeship
requirements 2 15 5 22

e. Shared grant
development
activities 4 13 6 23

f. Other 7 2 4 13

Q19. How often does your unit conduct formalized Quality Reviews of
individual apprenticeship programs that address on-the-job training,
related instruction, and/or program operations in your state?

      Less                                                        
frequently                                                          Number 
than every    Once     Once                     More                    of 
                every    every                     than           
three years  three     two    Once a  Twice a  twice a  Don't  respondents 
                years    years   year    year      year    know   
        7             2        6       3        0       3       1          22 

Q21. Approximately how many Quality Reviews did your unit conduct in FFY
2004? ( Click in the box and then enter up to a 4-digit whole number only.
)

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                      10            0           67               22 

Q22. To what extent, if at all, did your state find the FFY 2004 Quality
Reviews useful for the following purposes?

                                                                       Number
                        Very great Some Little or no extent ( Please Don't of
    extent Great extent Moderate extent extent specify in Question 24. ) know
                                                                  respondents

a. Making
informed
decisions about
the
administration
and operation
of
apprenticeship
programs 2 8 55 1 1 22

Appendix III: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
Federally-Monitored States

                                                                       Number
                        Very great Some Little or no extent ( Please Don't of
    extent Great extent Moderate extent extent specify in Question 24. ) know
                                                                  respondents

b. Evaluating
the strengths
and
weaknesses of
apprenticeship
programs in
your state 4 8 4 3 2 1 22

c. Assessing
how well the
programs
comply with
federal
regulations 3 10 3 2 3 1 22

d. Completing
reports about
your state's
apprenticeship
program 1 7 53 4 2 22

e. Other 1 3 02 3 4 13

Q26. How often does your unit conduct formalized Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) Reviews of individual apprenticeship programs?

      Less                                                        
frequently                                                          Number 
than every    Once     Once                     More                    of 
                every    every                     than           
three years  three     two    Once a  Twice a  twice a  Don't  respondents 
                years    years   year    year      year    know   
        8             3        6       2        0       3       1          23 

Q28. Approximately how many EEO Reviews did your unit conduct in FFY 2004?
( Click in the box and then enter up to a 4-digit whole number only. )

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                       8            0           35               23 

      Appendix III: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
                           Federally-Monitored States

Q29. To what extent, if at all, did your state find the FFY 2004 EEO
Reviews useful for the following purposes?

                                             Little or no              Number 
                                             extent (                      of 
                                             Please                
Very great            Moderate              specify in          respondent 
       extent   Great      extent Some       Question 31.    Don't          s 
                extent            extent     )                know 

a. Making
informed
decisions about
the
administration
and operation
of
apprenticeship
programs in
your state 4 9 3 3 2 1

b. Evaluating
the strengths
and
weaknesses of
apprenticeship
programs in
your state 6 10 2 2 1 1

c. Assessing
how well the
programs
comply with
federal
regulations 7 8 4 2 0 1

d. Completing
reports about
the state's
apprenticeship
programs 1 8 72 2 2

e. Other 3 0 01 2 5

Q33. Did your state have procedures or policies for recording complaints
filed in FFY 2004 that were elevated to the level of the state or regional
OATELS office?

                               Yes No Don't know

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

18 3 1 22 Q34a1. In your state, how many total complaints were referred to
state officials in FFY 2004?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
2                   1            0           10               18 

Appendix III: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
Federally-Monitored States

      Q34a2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate

                                     Count

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

Check here if                 
actual                  12          19 
Check here if                 
estimate                7           19 

Check here if
do not know or
cannot
estimate 0 19

Q34b1. How many complaints concerned termination in FFY 2004?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                       0            0            8               18 

      Q34b2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate

                                     Count

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

Check here if                 
actual                  12          18 
Check here if                 
estimate                6           18 

Check here if
do not know or
cannot
estimate 0 18

Q34c1. How many complaints concerned discrimination in FFY 2004?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
0                   0            0            5               18 

Q34c2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                            Count respondents

Check here if
actual 13 18

Appendix III: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
Federally-Monitored States

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

Count

Check here if
estimate 5 18

Check here if
do not know or
cannot
estimate 0 18

Q34d1. How many complaints concerned wages in FFY 2004?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                       0            0            2               18 

      Q34d2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate

                                     Count

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

Check here if                 
actual                  13          18 
Check here if                 
estimate                5           18 

Check here if
do not know or
cannot
estimate 0 18

Q34e1. How many complaints concerned related instruction in FFY 2004?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                       0            0            3               18 

Q34e2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate

                                   Number 
                                       of 
                      Count   respondents 
Check here if            
actual                13            18 
Check here if            
estimate               5            18 

Appendix III: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
Federally-Monitored States

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

                                     Count

Check here if
do not know or
cannot
estimate 0 18

Q34f1. How many complaints concerned on-the-job training in FFY 2004?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                       0            0            4               20 

Q34f2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate

                                     Count

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

Check here if                 
actual                  12          16 
Check here if                 
estimate                4           16 

Check here if
do not know or
cannot
estimate 0 16

Q34g1. How many complaints concerned other issues in FFY 2004?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                       0            0            5               18 

Q34g2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate

                                   Number 
                                       of 
                      Count   respondents 
Check here if            
actual                13            18 
Check here if            
estimate               5            18 

Check here if
do not know or
cannot
estimate 0 18

Appendix III: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
Federally-Monitored States

Q36. Which of the following were sources of data used to answer the prior
questions about complaints regarding apprenticeship programs in FFY 2004?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
                     Yes         No   Don't know        respondents 
Electronic                                       
statewide                                        
system             3          12               1              16 

Centralized
listing, log, or
other paper
compilation 6 10 1 17

Manual search
of files 7 8 0 15

                                  Other 3 2 16

Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
Council-Monitored States

Q2. At the close of your state's FY 2004, what was the total number of
registered apprentices in your state?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean            Median   Minimum      Maximum        respondents 
8,949             4748          689       72,920              27 

    Q2a. At the close of your state's FY 2004, what was the total number of
          registered apprentices in construction trades in your state?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean            Median   Minimum      Maximum        respondents 
6,287             4052          323       52,277              26 

Q2b. At the close of your state's FY 2004, what was the total number of
approved apprenticeship programs in construction trades in your state?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                     225           28        1,320               26 

Q3. During state FY 2004, how many full-time equivalency (FTE)
apprenticeship training staff were employed by your apprentice unit to
monitor and oversee apprenticeship programs in your state?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                       4            0           32               27 

Q4. Of the FTE apprenticeship training staff reported above, approximately
what percentage of their time was spent in the field monitoring and
overseeing apprenticeship or providing technical assistance related to
monitoring or oversight during state FY2004?

                                                                       Number 
                                                                           of 
0 - 19%  20 - 39%  40 - 59%  60 - 79%  80 - 100%  Don't know   respondents 
                    5         7         6          5           0           27 

Q5. Do you have a BAT agency in your state?

                                                           Number 
                                                               of 
                 Yes          No   Don't know         respondents 
                 20            7               0               27 

Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
Council-Monitored States

Q6. During state FY 2004, how many full-time equivalency (FTE)
apprenticeship training staff were employed by the BAT agency in your
state to monitor and oversee apprenticeship programs in your state?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                       1            0           10               19 

Q8. How often does your OATELS conduct SAC 29/29 Review (Review of Labor
Standards for Registration of Apprenticeship Programs) in your state?

      Less                                                        
frequently                                                          Number 
than every    Once     Once                     More                    of 
                every    every                     than           
three years  three     two    Once a  Twice a  twice a  Don't  respondents 
                years    years   year    year      year    know   
       12             5        3       2        0       0       5          27 

Q10. To what extent did your state find OATELS' most recent SAC 29/29
Review (Review of Labor Standards for Registration of Apprenticeship
Programs) useful for the following purposes in your state?

                                                                       Number
                                          Very great Moderate Little or no of
         extent Great extent extent Some extent extent Don't know respondents

a. Making
informed
decisions about
the
administration
and operation
of
apprenticeship
programs 2 3 546 7

b. Evaluating
the strengths
and
weaknesses of
apprenticeship
programs in
your state 2 4 257 7

c. Assessing
how well the
programs
comply with
federal
regulations 3 6 2 3 6 727

d. Completing
reports about
your state's
apprenticeship
program 1 1 368 827

e. Other 2 0 111 914

Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
Council-Monitored States

Q15. How often does OATELS conduct SAC 29/30 Review (Review of Equal
Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training) in your state?

      Less                                                        
frequently                                                          Number 
than every    Once     Once                     More                    of 
                every    every                     than           
three years  three     two    Once a  Twice a  twice a  Don't  respondents 
                years    years   year    year      year    know   
       12             5        3       2        0       0       5          27 

Q17. To what extent, if at all, did your state find OATELS' most recent
SAC 29/30 Review (Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and
Training) useful for the following purposes?

                                                                       Number
                                          Very great Moderate Little or no of
         extent Great extent extent Some extent extent Don't know respondents

a. Making
informed
decisions about
the
administration
and operation
of
apprenticeship
programs 2 2 635 9

b. Evaluating
the strengths
and
weaknesses of
apprenticeship
programs in
your state 1 3 545 9

c. Assessing
how well the
programs
comply with
federal
regulations 2 6 4 2 4 9

d. Completing
reports about
your state's
apprenticeship
program 1 0 5 6 51027

e. Other 1 0 012 48

Q21. Does your state presently use OATELS' Registered Apprenticeship
Information System (RAIS) to register apprentices and to track apprentice
and program information?

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                           Yes No respondents

                                    6 21 27

      Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
                            Council-Monitored States

Q23. Does you state plan or intend to use RAIS to register apprentices and
track apprenticeship and program information in the future ?

                               Yes No Don't know

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

12 5 24

Q26. Did your state use the WIA Governor's 15% State Set-Aside funds to
support new and/or established apprenticeship programs in state FY 2004?

                               Yes No Don't know

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

20 0 27

Q27. Were WIA State Set-Aside funds used to support new and/or established
apprenticeship programs in your state in state FY 2004 to do any of the
following?

Yes, new Yes, established Number apprenticeship apprenticeship of programs
                                           programs No Don't know respondents

a. To provide
related
instruction or
other education
that satisfied
specific
apprenticeship
requirements 4 1 2 0 7

b. To provide
on-the-job
training 2 13 0 6

c. To
disseminate
information
about
apprenticeship
programs 4 03 0 7

d. To encourage
entities to
sponsor and
register
additional or
new programs 2 1 3 0 6

e. Other 2 21 0 5

      Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
                            Council-Monitored States

Q29. For which of the following reasons did your state not use WIA
Set-Aside Funds to support apprenticeship programs in state FY 2004?

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                Yes No Don't know respondents

a. Decision
makers gave
priority to other
programs. 10 5 7 22

b. Decision
makers did not
believe funds
could be used
to support new
apprenticeship
programs. 8 4 10 22

c. Decision
makers did not
believe funds
could be used
to support
established
apprenticeship
programs. 8 4 10 22

d. Decision
makers did not
believe funds
could be used
to provide
related
instruction or
other education
that satisfied
specific
apprenticeship
requirements. 5 5 12 22

e. Decision
makers did not
believe funds
could be used
to provide on
the-job training. 4 7 11 22

f. Decision
makers did not
believe funds
could be used
to disseminate
information
about
apprenticeship
programs. 3 6 13 22

Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
Council-Monitored States

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                Yes No Don't know respondents

g. Decision
makers did not
believe funds
could be used
to encourage
the recruitment
of entities to
sponsor and
register new
programs. 5 6 11 22

h. Decision
makers did not
establish
linkages
between the
state
apprenticeship
unit and unit(s)
responsible for
WIA. 9 9 523

i. Other 2 2 37

Q31. Were WIA funding sources other than State Set-Aside Funds used in
your state to support new and/or established apprenticeship programs in
state FY 2004?

                               Yes No Don't know

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

17 3 27

Q32. Other than State Set-Aside Funds, which of the following WIA funding
sources were used to support new and/or established apprenticeship
programs in state FY 2004?

                                                                  Yes, Number
                                                      Yes, new established of
                                  programs programs No Don't know respondents

a. Adult Funds 1 4 0 1 6

b. Dislocated
Worker Funds 0 5 1 1 7

c. Youth Funds 2 1 2 1 6

d. Other 0 1 113

      Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
                            Council-Monitored States

Q34. Did your state establish linkages between WIA and the state
apprenticeship unit in state FY 2004 for any of the following purposes?

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                Yes No Don't know respondents

a. Shared
decision
making 7 17 2 26

b. Shared
information
gathering 15 10 1 26

c. Shared
information
dissemination,
including
presentations 14 13 0 27

d. Shared use
of educational
programs that
satisfy specific
apprenticeship
requirements 6 17 3 26

e. Shared grant
development
activities 5 18 3 26

f. Other 1 4 16

Q37. Did your state have a mechanism for conducting formalized reviews of
apprenticeship programs that address on-the-job training, related
instruction, and/or program operations in state FY 2004?

                               Yes No Don't know

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

0 0 25

Q38. Which of the following components -- on-the-job training, related
instruction, and/or program operations -- were included in these reviews?

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                Yes No Don't know respondents

a. Currency of on
the-job training
with acceptable
industry practice 22 3 0 25

b. Relative
continuity of
employment for
on-the-job training 25 0 0 25

      Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
                            Council-Monitored States

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                Yes No Don't know respondents

c. Provision of on
the-job training in
all aspects of
trades 25 0 0 25

d. Consistency
with standards for
related
instructions 25 0 0 25

e. Currency of
related instruction
with acceptable
industry practice 21 3 1 25

f. Appropriateness
of wages to actual
hours of related
instruction and
on-the-job training 24 1 0 25

g. Establishment
of criteria or
guidelines for
instructors 14 11 0 25

h. Completion
rates 23 2 025

i. Cancellation
rates 22 2 125

j. Relative amount
of time taken by
apprentices to
complete
programs relative
to time required
for program 18 7 0 25

k. Maintenance of
required records 25 0 0 25

l. Other 1 1 13

Q40. How often does your state conduct formalized reviews of individual
apprenticeship programs that address on-the-job training, related
instruction, and/or program operations?

      Less                                                        
frequently                                                          Number 
than every    Once     Once                     More                    of 
                every    every                     than           
three years  three     two    Once a  Twice a  twice a  Don't  respondents 
                years    years   year    year      year    know   
        4             1       10       7        2       3       0          27 

      Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
                            Council-Monitored States

Q42. Does your state have a mechanism for conducting formalized Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) reviews of individual apprenticeship
programs?

                               Yes No Don't know

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

3 0 27

Q43. How often does your state conduct formalized Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) reviews of individual apprenticeship programs?

      Less                                                        
frequently                                                          Number 
than every    Once     Once                     More                    of 
                every    every                     than           
three years  three     two    Once a  Twice a  twice a  Don't  respondents 
                years    years   year    year      year    know   
        2             3        8      11        0       0       0          24 

Q45. Did your state have procedures or policies for recording complaints
filed in state FY 2004 that were elevated to the level of state
apprenticeship agencies?

                               Yes No Don't know

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

3 1 26 Q46a1. In your state, how many total complaints were referred to
state officials in state FY 2004?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                       1            0          699               20 

Q46a2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate

                                   Number 
                                       of 
                      Count   respondents 
Check here if            
actual                15            22 
Check here if            
estimate               5            22 

Check here if
do not know or
cannot
estimate 2 22

Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
Council-Monitored States

       Q46b1. How many complaints concerned termination in state FY 2004?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                       1            0          100               20 

Q46b2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate

                                     Count

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

Check here if                 
actual                  16          22 
Check here if                 
estimate                3           22 

Check here if
do not know or
cannot
estimate 3 22

Q46c1. How many complaints concerned discrimination in state FY 2004?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                       0            0            2               20 

Q46c2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate

                                     Count

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

Check here if                 
actual                  17          21 
Check here if                 
estimate                1           21 

Check here if
do not know or
cannot
estimate 3 21

Q46d1. How many complaints concerned wages in state FY 2004?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
2                   0            0           25               20 

Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
Council-Monitored States

      Q46d2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate

                                     Count

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

Check here if                 
actual                  15          22 
Check here if                 
estimate                4           22 

Check here if
do not know or
cannot
estimate 3 22

Q46e1. How many complaints concerned related instruction in state FY 2004?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                       0            0            5               21 

Q46e2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate

                                     Count

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

Check here if                 
actual                  16          21 
Check here if                 
estimate                4           21 

Check here if
do not know or
cannot
estimate 1 21

Q46f1. How many complaints concerned on-the-job training in state FY 2004?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
1                   0            0            9               23 

Q46f2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                            Count respondents

Check here if
actual 17 22

      Appendix IV: Responses to Survey of Directors of Apprenticeships in
                            Council-Monitored States

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

                                     Count

Check here if
estimate 4 22

Check here if
do not know or
cannot
estimate 1 22

Q46g1. How many complaints concerned other issues in state FY 2004?

                                                             Number 
                                                                 of 
Mean           Median   Minimum      Maximum         respondents 
                       0            0          664               19 

Q46g2. Check if actual, estimate, or do not know or cannot estimate

                                     Count

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                                  respondents

Check here if                 
actual                  16          20 
Check here if                 
estimate                2           20 

Check here if
do not know or
cannot
estimate 2 20

Q48. Which of the following were sources of data used to answer the prior
questions about complaints regarding apprenticeship
programs in the construction trade in state FY 2004?

                                                                       Number
                                                                           of
                                                Yes No Don't know respondents

a. Electronic
statewide
system 5 6 112

b. Centralized
listing, log, or
other paper
compilation 8 5 1 14

c. Manual
search of files 11 4 1 16

d. Other 3 1 04

               Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact Sigurd R. Nilsen (202) 512-7215

Staff 	Patrick DiBattista, Assistant Director, Scott Heacock, Linda W.
Stokes, and Kathleen D. White managed all aspects of the assignment. The
following

Acknowledgments 	individuals made significant contributions to this
report: Susan Bernstein, Jessica Botsford, Richard Burkard, Cathy Hurley,
and Jean McSween.

Related GAO Products

Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but
Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650.
Washington, D.C.: June 2005.

Public Community Colleges and Technical Schools: Most Schools Use Both
Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development.

GAO-05-4. Washington, D.C.: October 2004.

Registered Apprenticeships: Labor Could Do More to Expand to Other
Occupations. GAO-01-940. Washington, D.C.: September 2001.

Youth Training. PEMD-94-32R. Washington, D.C.: September 1994.

Apprenticeship Training: Administration, Use, and Equal Opportunity.

HRD-92-43. Washington, D.C.: March 1992.

  GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

  To Report Fraud, Contact:

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

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs 	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

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