National Emergency Grants: Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award	 
Timeliness and Data Collection, but Further Steps Can Improve	 
Process (05-SEP-06, GAO-06-870).				 
                                                                 
Between January 2004 and December 2005, more than 30,000 mass	 
layoffs involving 50 or more workers occurred in the United	 
States, causing more than 3.4 million workers to lose their jobs.
National emergency grants expand services to laid-off workers	 
when other state and federal programs are insufficient to meet	 
their needs. GAO assessed (1) whether Labor has shortened grant  
award times since GAO's 2004 report and was meeting own 	 
timeliness goal, (2) the uniformity of the program data that	 
Labor now collects, and (3) Labor's oversight of national	 
emergency grant projects. To address these objectives, GAO	 
analyzed information for program year 2004 and the first 2	 
quarters of 2005 and compared it with data collected for program 
years 2000- 2002.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-870 					        
    ACCNO:   A60224						        
  TITLE:     National Emergency Grants: Labor Has Improved Its Grant  
Award Timeliness and Data Collection, but Further Steps Can	 
Improve Process 						 
     DATE:   09/05/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Data collection					 
	     Employment assistance programs			 
	     Federal aid programs				 
	     Federal grants					 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Grant administration				 
	     Grant award procedures				 
	     Performance appraisal				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Timeliness 					 
	     Workforce Investment Act Standardized		 
	     Record Data					 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-870

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

GAO

September 2006

NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANTS

 Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award Timeliness and Data Collection, but Further
                           Steps Can Improve Process

GAO-06-870

NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANTS

Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award Timeliness and Data Collection, but
Further Steps Can Improve Process

  What GAO Found

We found that Labor's new electronic application system has, on average,
shortened award processing time and most national emergency grants were
awarded within Labor's goal of 30 working days as measured by GAO-from the
time the application is submitted to the issuance of the award letter. In
program year 2004, Labor averaged 25 working days to award grants, in
contrast to program years 2000-2002, when it averaged 50 working days.
Moreover, in program year 2004, Labor awarded 70 percent of all grants
within 30 working days, in contrast to 38 percent for program years
20002002. Although Labor has improved the overall timeliness for awards,
award times ranged from 1 to 90 working days and varied by type of grant.
For example, disaster grants were awarded, on average, in 16 days, but
regular grants were awarded, on average, in 45 days. Delays in obtaining
funds adversely impacted some grantees' ability to provide services. Also,
we found that Labor's electronic application system and its timeliness
goal did not capture every phase of the award process. In addition, users
of this system reported some technical problems.

Labor has taken steps to improve its two main sources of data for
assessing how grant funds are used-the quarterly progress reports and the
Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) database. Labor
introduced a new electronic quarterly report system in program year 2004.
Since then, grantees have generally been submitting uniform and consistent
information. Also, our review of available WIASRD data for program year
2004 shows that at least 92 percent of states that received national
emergency grants included information on these grants in their WIASRD
submissions.

Labor's regional offices oversee each project to track performance and
compliance with program requirements by conducting various monitoring
activities, including approving program operating plans, reviewing
quarterly progress reports, and conducting site visits. However, Labor has
not issued complete, program-specific guidance that would standardize
monitoring practices across regions, states, and local areas and help
ensure consistent practices. In addition, officials in most of the states
and local areas we visited said that Labor does not regularly help
disseminate information about how states and local areas are managing
their national emergency grant projects.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

Letter 1
Results in Brief 3
Background 6
Labor Has Shortened Award Times, but Does Not Track the Entire Award
Process 12
Labor Has Made Progress in Collecting More Uniform Program Data 19
Labor Monitors Projects for Compliance with Basic Program Requirements,
but Some States Reported That Better Guidance Is Needed 21
Conclusions 24
Recommendations for Executive Action 25
Agency Comments 25
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 28
Timeliness Assessment 28
Analysis of Program Data 29
Assessment of Data Quality 29
Interviews with Labor Officials 29
Site Visits 30
Appendix II Summary of Funds Awarded for Regular, Disaster, and Dual
Enrollment Grants during Program Year 2004

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Labor

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Related GAO Products

Tables  
               Table 1: Average Time to Award Grants by Quarter in Which   
                        Application Was Received (Program Years 2000-2002 and
                                 Program Year 2004)                        16 
              Table 2: Number and Percent of Quarterly Progress Reports    
                           Provided by Quarter Awarded (Program Year 2004) 19 
                 Table 3: Information Contained in Progress Reports        20 
               Table 4: Number of States That Submitted Data to WIASRD     21 
             Table 5: Number of National Emergency Grants Awarded and Used 
           in GAO Analysis                                                 28 
           Table 6: Number of Grants Received during Program Year 2004 and 
                      the First 2 Quarters of Program Year 2005            30 
Figures                                                                 
           Figure 1: Funding Reserved from the Dislocated Worker Allotment 
                             for the Secretary of Labor                     6 
              Figure 2: Distribution of National Emergency Grant Funds     
                                 (Program Year 2004)                       10 
           Figure 3: Percentage of Funds Awarded by Type of Grant (Program 
                        Years 2000 -First 2 Quarters of 2005)              11 
              Figure 4: Average Time Taken to Award National Emergency     
                    Grants (Program Years 2000-2002 and Program Year 2004) 13 
             Figure 5: Percent of Grants Awarded Within 30 Days by Project 
                              Type (Program Year 2004)                     14 
              Figure 6: Differences between How GAO and Labor's Electronic 
                     Application System Track the National Emergency Grant 
           Award Process                                                   18 

Abbreviations

BRAC             Base Realignment and Closure                              
ETA              Employment and Training Administration                    
ONR              Office of National Response                               
WIA              Workforce Investment Act                                  
WIASRD                   Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data 

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

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

September 5, 2006

The Honorable Arlen Specter Chairman The Honorable Tom Harkin Ranking
Minority Member Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,

Education, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations United States
Senate

The Honorable Ralph Regula Chairman The Honorable David R. Obey Ranking
Minority Member Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,

Education, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of
Representatives

Between January 2004 and December 2005, the United States experienced more
than 30,000 mass layoffs involving 50 or more workers, with more than 3.4
million workers losing their jobs. These losses affected all types of
workers-including those working in the professional, service, information
processing, and manufacturing sectors-in every state in the nation. To
help supplement regular dislocated worker funding, the Department of Labor
(Labor) administers the National Emergency Grant program. Authorized under
the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, national emergency grants
provide temporary employment, training assistance, and other supports to
workers whose jobs were lost because of major economic dislocations, such
as plant closings or natural disasters, such as floods and hurricanes.
Dislocated workers can obtain temporary employment performing clean-up
activities after natural disasters, or training-such as working with
computers-to obtain the skills needed to re-enter the workforce in a new
occupation following a layoff. These grants are time-limited discretionary
awards to help states and local areas provide employment and training
services when basic formula WIA funds are insufficient to meet the needs
of dislocated workers.

In program year 2004-which began on July 1, 2004, and ended on June 30,
2005-and the first 2 quarters of program year 2005-July 1, 2005, to
December 31, 2005-Labor awarded about $342 million in grant funds ($232
million for program year 2004 and $110 million for the first 2 quarters of
program year 2005). Most of these funds were provided as disaster grants
for victims of hurricanes and floods. Grantees used these funds to provide
temporary employment and humanitarian aid such as water and other
necessities to individuals who lost their jobs as a result of these
natural disasters. In addition, about $30 million of program year 2004
funds were awarded to help states and localities mitigate anticipated job
losses from military base realignments and closures. These base
realignment and closure (BRAC) grants funded activities to help states
initiate early community planning to provide assistance to large numbers
of workers who might lose their jobs due to BRAC decisions. In addition,
regular national emergency grants provided training, often through
community colleges, and support services, such as psychological or
financial counseling, for workers unemployed due to mass layoffs.

In April 2004, we reported that services to dislocated workers were being
affected by delays in awarding national emergency grants in program years
2000 through 2002. 1 We identified weaknesses in Labor's processing and
management of national emergency grants, particularly with respect to the
timeliness with which they were awarded and the quality of data collected
regarding how grant funds were being used. In light of these problems,
Congress mandated that we examine the program's current administration.
Our objectives were to (1) determine whether Labor has shortened grant
award times since our 2004 report and has been able to meet its own goal
for awarding grants in 30 working days, (2) examine the uniformity of the
program data that Labor is currently collecting, and

(3) assess Labor's monitoring and oversight of national emergency grant
projects. To obtain national information on Labor's application
processing, data collection, and monitoring activities, we collected and
analyzed information on grants awarded in program year 2004 and the first
2 quarters of program year 2005. We examined grants from this time period
because program year 2004 was the first year that Labor implemented a new
electronic application system designed to improve grant award timeliness.
We calculated the number of days it took Labor to award grants from the
grantees' perspective. We began counting on the day the application was
submitted and ended on the day the award letter

GAO, National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve
Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant Awards
and Improve Data, GAO-04-496 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2004).

    Page 2 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants

                                Results in Brief

was sent by Labor. We then compared our findings with the results of our
prior study to determine if there were changes in processing time. To
assess the quality of the data that Labor currently collects, we
interviewed officials in headquarters and examined quarterly progress
reports to determine the completeness and uniformity of this information.
We assessed the reliability of Labor's data and concluded they were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. We also examined
official grant files and reviewed relevant program documents. We conducted
site visits in four states (Florida, Maine, Oregon, and Texas). We chose
these states because they received substantial national emergency grant
funding in program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of program year
2005; represented different geographical regions; and received grants
addressing a variety of dislocation events, including plant closings,
natural disasters, out-sourcing, and military base realignments. To
evaluate Labor's monitoring activities, we conducted semi-structured
interviews with state and local officials involved in monitoring and
regional office officials in four of Labor's six regional offices that are
responsible for monitoring national emergency grants. We selected these
regions because they monitored activities in the states that we visited.
See appendix I for a detailed discussion of our scope and methodology. Our
work was conducted between September 2005 and July 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief

In program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of program year 2005, we
found that, on average, Labor had shortened award processing time compared
with program years 2000-2002, and as a result, workers generally received
services in a more timely manner. In July 2004, Labor implemented a new
electronic application system and streamlined the amount of information
applicants are required to submit. Both of these actions helped Labor
improve grant award timeliness and, on average, meet its 30-working-day
processing goal as we measured it-from the date the application was
submitted to the date the approval letter was sent. Labor averaged 25
working days to award grants during program year 2004, while during
program years 2000-2002 the average was 50 working days. Similarly, the
average time to award both regular and disaster national emergency grants
was shorter in program years 2004 and the first 2 quarters of 2005 than
during the prior period. Moreover, in program year 2004, Labor awarded 70
percent of all grants within its goal of 30 working days. In contrast, in
program years 2000-2002, only 38 percent were awarded in 30 working days.
Similarly, in the first 2 quarters of 2005, Labor averaged 21 working days
and awarded 67 percent of the grants within its 30-working-day goal-almost
all of which were disaster grants related to Hurricane Katrina. While
Labor has improved the overall timeliness for grant awards, challenges
remain. For example, in program year 2004, award times ranged from 1 to 90
working days and differed by type of grant, with disaster grants for
workers dislocated due to national disasters taking 16 working days on
average and regular national emergency grants for workers dislocated due
to plant closings taking 45 working days on average. As a result, within
30 working days, Labor awarded 91 percent of disaster grants, but only 16
percent of regular grants. In addition, we found that Labor's electronic
application system does not capture every phase of the award process.
Specifically, it excludes the time needed to obtain the Secretary's
approval and issue award notification letters to grantees, which added 11
additional working days, on average, to the process in 2004. Thus, while
grants are, on average, being awarded more quickly than in the past,
Labor's electronic application system and its process for measuring
timeliness do not fully capture the total time taken to award grants.

Labor has taken steps to improve its two main sources of data for
assessing how grant funds are used-the quarterly progress reports and the
Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD). In program
year 2004, Labor issued guidance to state workforce agencies requiring
them to submit progress report data electronically. Also in that year,
Labor introduced an electronic progress report system that standardized
the data elements collected in progress reports. We found that grantees
have generally been submitting uniform and consistent information since
the new system was introduced. In addition, most quarterly reports were
submitted within the required time frames. These reports generally
provided complete information on data elements that describe the use of
funds, including the types of projects funded, the numbers of participants
receiving services, and the total expenditures at the grantee and project
level. Labor also issued guidance on WIASRD in August 2004 that it uses to
track the employment status and wages of individuals who participated in
grant projects. This guidance was intended to clarify to state and local
workforce agencies that they are required to submit data on national
emergency grant participants to WIASRD. Our analysis and interviews with
state and local officials suggest that the guidance has generally been
effective in helping states include data on national emergency grants in
their WIASRD submissions. For example, our review of available WIA data
for program year 2004 showed that this database contains information for
44 of the 48 states that received national emergency grants and were
subject to WIA reporting requirements.

Labor oversees national emergency grant projects by monitoring states and
local areas for compliance with basic program rules, but many state and
local officials we interviewed said they would like to see Labor collect
and disseminate information from other states and local areas on promising
practices for grant management. Labor's regional offices, which have
primary responsibility for oversight, carry out a variety of activities to
monitor grants, including conducting internal risk assessments, reviewing
project operating plans, and assessing financial and quarterly progress
reports. Regional officials also periodically visit state grantees and
project sites to assess their program and financial management, examine
case files, and ensure that services-such as temporary employment for
dislocated workers to clean up after natural disasters-are being
delivered. While the state and local officials we interviewed generally
said that Labor's oversight activities were beneficial, these officials
said they lacked complete, program-specific guidance that could help them
more efficiently coordinate with Labor and conduct their own monitoring
activities. Labor has developed a draft monitoring tool for this program,
but has only distributed it to three of the four regional offices included
in our study for their use in site visits. Labor has yet to finalize the
tool and formally distribute it to state and local officials. Many of the
officials we interviewed told us they would benefit from such a tool. In
addition to more specific guidance on monitoring responsibilities, some
state and local grant recipients reported that they could benefit from
information on promising practices in other states and localities for
effectively managing grant projects and providing aid to dislocated
workers. They noted, however, that Labor does not currently facilitate
opportunities for disseminating such information to grantees.

To further improve its management of the national emergency grant process,
we are recommending that Labor extend its electronic application system
and its timeliness measurement process to capture the entirety of the
award process from the perspective of grant applicants, specifically
through final approval and issuance of award letters by the Secretary. We
are also recommending that Labor solicit information from users of the
application system to guide future refinements to this system. In
addition, we are recommending that Labor distribute more complete guidance
and tools for monitoring grant projects and explore costeffective ways to
disseminate information to states and local areas to help them learn about
promising practices for managing national grant projects. In its comments,
Labor generally agreed with our recommendations.

  Background

WIA authorizes the National Emergency Grant program and funds the program
through its dislocated worker funding stream. This funding stream is one
of three specified by WIA to fund services for its client
groups-dislocated workers, youth, and adults. Dislocated workers include
individuals who have been terminated or laid off, or who have received a
notice of termination or layoff, individuals who were selfemployed but are
unemployed as a result of general economic conditions in the community or
natural disasters, and unemployed or underemployed homemakers who are no
longer supported by family members. Under WIA, the Secretary of Labor
retains 20 percent of dislocated worker funds in a national reserve
account to be used for national emergency grants, demonstrations, and
technical assistance and allots the remaining funds to each of the states,
local workforce boards, and other entities that demonstrate to the
Secretary the capacity to respond to the circumstances relating to
particular dislocations. Of the amount reserved by the Secretary in any
program year, at least 85 percent of the Secretary's national reserve must
be used for national emergency grants (see fig. 1). During program year
2004, this amount was approximately $232 million and $110 million2 during
the first 2 quarters of program year 2005, for a total of $342 million.

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

2

At the time of our review, data were available for only the first 2
quarters of program year 2005.

Page 6 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants

National emergency grants expand WIA services that are available to
dislocated workers when dislocated worker formula funds are insufficient
to meet the needs of affected workers. Under WIA, dislocated workers can
receive three levels of services-core, intensive, and training. Core
services include job search and placement assistance, preliminary skill
assessments, and the provision of labor market information, and are
routinely available to anyone seeking assistance through a WIA service
center. Dislocated workers who need additional services to find work can
receive intensive services, such as case management and comprehensive
assessments. In addition, dislocated workers may also qualify for training
services, including occupational skills training, on-the-job training,
skill upgrading, and entrepreneurial training.

Typically, state workforce agencies apply for national emergency grants
and distribute funds to local workforce boards in areas affected by the
dislocations. These boards, in turn, usually contract with organizations
that provide services or administrative support. Grantees can apply for
grants that fund three major types of projects:

     o regular grants to retrain workers who have lost their jobs because of
       plant closings, layoffs, or military base realignments or closures;
     o disaster grants to provide temporary employment, humanitarian
       services, and retraining for workers affected by natural disasters and
       other catastrophic events; and
     o dual enrollment grants to provide supportive assistance such as case
       management services and vocational assessments to workers certified by
       Labor to receive training under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform
       Act of 2002. These are usually for workers who have lost their jobs
       because of increased imports from, or shifts in production to, foreign
       countries.

Like other programs authorized under WIA, national emergency grant
projects must be designed to achieve performance outcomes that support
Labor's performance goals. Also, Labor requires grantees to collect data
from local projects, certify the accuracy of the data, and use them to
complete various reports, such as the quarterly progress reports for
national emergency grants and the state's WIASRD data submissions.
Quarterly progress reports include project-level information on actual
performance to date-for example, the number of individuals participating
in a project; the services provided, such as intensive services or
training; and the number who entered employment. WIASRD is a national
database of individual records containing characteristics, activities, and
outcome information for all enrolled participants who receive services or
benefits under WIA, including national emergency grants. The database
includes the services and training that each participant received and
information on their subsequent employment status and wages. In
coordination with federal agencies, the Office of Management and Budget
developed uniform evaluation measures, called "common measures," for job
training and employment programs and other cross-cutting programs. The
common measures were designed to institute uniform definitions for
performance-such as the percentage of participants who become
employed-across federal workforce programs. Beginning in July 2005,
national emergency grant projects became subject to the common measures
and Labor expected grantees to include them in its WIASRD data collection
and reporting activities for program year 2004.3

In program year 2004, Labor funded a special type of grant, called a base
realignment and closure (BRAC) planning grant. These grants provided
resources to states and communities to plan for anticipated base closures,
unlike other regular grants that provide more general employment-related
services for dislocated workers. Accordingly, states that could be
affected by BRAC actions were eligible to apply for national emergency
grant funds. Labor issued guidance in May 2005 that explained the
procedures for obtaining these grants. This guidance also specified that
applicants must submit their applications by June 10, 2005.

Labor's Office of National Response, in the Employment and Training
Administration (ETA), administers the National Emergency Grant program.
Headquarters and regional staff share responsibility for program
administration and oversight. At headquarters, officials make grant award
decisions and determine whether grants will be awarded in a single payment
or in increments. For grants disbursed in incremental payments, grantees
are required to submit supplemental information along with their requests
for future funding increments. Labor has established an internal goal of
making these decisions within 30 working days. After grants are awarded,
regional officials assume the lead role in conducting monitoring and
oversight activities. For example, after the grant is approved, regional
officials review and approve the project operating plan and budget,
conduct at least one site visit that examines project activities, and
review quarterly progress reports and financial reports.

Grantees were required to use the new measures beginning on July 1, 2005.

    Distribution and Uses of National Emergency Grants

In program year 2004, Labor distributed about $232 million from the
dislocated worker fund for national emergency grants to 43 states, the
District of Columbia, and three territories (see fig. 2). The funding
levels of these grants varied greatly. Labor awarded the largest
proportion of funds to Florida-$76 million in grant funds, or 33 percent
of the program's total funds awarded during that year-mostly in the form
of disaster grants to help the state respond to the needs of workers
displaced as a result of hurricane damage. Ohio and California each
received over $20 million in grants, primarily to help them meet the needs
of workers displaced as a result of floods and storm disasters. Other
states, such as Maine and Massachusetts, each received over $6 million,
mainly to help them meet the needs of workers dislocated because of plant
closings and downsizing, and Oregon received over $2 million, in part to
help workers dislocated because of competition from foreign countries.

Figure 2: Distribution of National Emergency Grant Funds (Program Year
2004)

                             Source: GAO analysis.

Over the past 5 program years, Labor has awarded proportionally more of
its national emergency grant funds for disaster grants and a smaller
proportion for regular and dual-enrollment grants. In program year 2000,
Labor awarded only 4 percent of its funds for disaster grants. In
contrast, in program year 2004, Labor awarded about 57 percent of grant
funds for disaster grants and 29 percent for regular grants (see fig. 3).
For the first 2 quarters of program year 2005, Labor awarded 92 percent of
all the funds it awarded during those quarters for disaster projects in 11
states- Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas-largely in
response to damage and dislocations resulting from Hurricane Katrina.
During these 2 quarters, Labor awarded about 8 percent for regular grants.

Figure 3: Percentage of Funds Awarded by Type of Grant (Program Years
2000- First 2 Quarters of 2005)

100

80

60

40

20

0

2000 2001 2002 20032004 2005

$184.5m $180.9m $249m $218.8m $231.6m $109.9m Program year/total awarded

BRAC Regular Disaster Dual enrollment Source: GAO analysis. Notes: Totals
may not add due to rounding. Funds awarded for BRAC and dual enrollment
grants in program year 2005 equal less than 1 percent and are excluded
from the graph. Data for program year 2005 represent only funds awarded
during the first 2 quarters of that year.

  Labor Has Shortened Award Times, but Does Not Track the Entire Award Process

Labor's new electronic application system and the streamlined information
requirements for national emergency grant applications have, on average,
shortened the time it takes to award grants to 25 working days and helped
Labor award 70 percent of the grants in program year 2004 within 30
working days from the submission of the application to the issuance of the
award letter. However, regular national emergency grants (regular grants)
took longer to award-45 working days on average-and most were not awarded
within Labor's 30-working-day goal. Moreover, Labor's new system and its
stated goal for awarding grants do not take into account important steps
in the award process, such as obtaining approval from key Labor officials
and issuing the award letter to the grantee. These steps added 11 days on
average to the award process and thus hampered Labor's ability to
accurately evaluate its performance. Further, the steps that are excluded
involve actions that are of great importance from the grantees'
perspective-the Secretary's final approval and the award letter notifying
them of the amount of money awarded. In addition, some users reported
technical problems with the system that have affected its convenience and
efficiency.

    Labor's New Electronic System Has Improved Grant Award Times

During program years 2000-2002,4 Labor took 50 working days, on average,
to award national emergency grants-as measured from the date an
application is submitted until the date an award letter is issued. In
program year 2004, Labor reduced its average award processing time to 25
days for all types of grants-decreasing the average processing time for
regular grants from 63 to 45 days5 and for disaster grants from 34 to 16
days. Although Labor averaged 29 working days to award dual enrollment
grants in 2004-longer than the 14 days it averaged during program years
2000-2002-most were awarded within its 30-day goal and these grants
comprised less than 10 percent of the grants awarded that year (see fig.
4).

4

In our prior study, we reported award times in calendar days and noted
that Labor took, on average, 92 calendar days to award regular grants. We
used working days in our analysis because Labor clarified that, in program
year 2004 and in the future, its 30-day goal refers to working days.

5

We considered BRAC and regular grants as separate grant categories because
of differences in their characteristics, although Labor considers both
regular grants.

Page 12 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants

Figure 4: Average Time Taken to Award National Emergency Grants (Program
Years 2000-2002 and Program Year 2004)

Notes: We did not include program year 2003 in our analysis because
Labor's electronic application system and procedures for using this system
were not implemented until program year 2004.

The average for all grants is a weighted average.

Overall, Labor awarded 70 percent of all grants within 30 working days
compared with 38 percent in program years 2000-2002. Also in program year
2004, Labor met this goal for 100 percent of the BRAC grants and for 91
percent of all disaster grants. In contrast, awards for regular grants
took longer. Processing time for these grants averaged 45 working days,
and Labor awarded only 16 percent of these grants within its
30-working-day goal (see fig. 5).

Figure 5: Percent of Grants Awarded Within 30 Days by Project Type
(Program Year 2004)

Total BRAC Regular Disaster Dual grantsenrollment

      30 days or fewer

Source: GAO analysis.

The new electronic system has facilitated improvements in award processing
time in three ways. First, because applicants cannot submit an application
on this system without completing all required data fields, Labor no
longer has to return incomplete applications. Second, because applications
are electronic, submissions are nearly instantaneous and the format allows
Labor and applicants to exchange information more efficiently than the
former paper-based system. Third, under the new system, the applicants are
only required to provide basic information- including project type,
planned number of participants, planned support services, and the project
operator. Grantees receiving regular grants have 90 days from the grant
approval date to submit project operating plans, staffing plans, and
budgets. In the case of disaster grants, grantees have 60 days from the
grant approval date to submit the required information.

Although average processing times have decreased in program year 2004, the
time to award grants varied widely, ranging from 1 to 90 working days,
with some types of grants taking longer than others. Several factors
likely contributed to this variance. For example, several disaster grants
were processed very quickly-within 1 to 2 days-because of the urgent need
for funds in areas impacted by storms and flooding. Also, the 39 BRAC
grants were awarded, on average, in only 14 days, reflecting the short

    Award Processing Time Was More Consistent during Program Year 2004

period of time that was available to submit and process them. In order to
be eligible for BRAC grants, states had to be included on the Department
of Defense's preliminary base realignment and closure list, issued on May
13, 2005, and also had to follow Labor's special guidance for these grants
that specified that applications were due by June 10. Because the funds
for these grants were reserved from program year 2004 money, Labor had to
award them by June 30, the end of that program year. In contrast,
questions about the appropriateness of project applications delayed the
approval of other grants. For one project we visited, officials reported
that approval for an application to address a plant closure took 46
working days (about 2 months), largely because Labor questioned the amount
of funds they requested and required them to prepare additional
information to justify the costs. In addition, some grantees reported that
delays in obtaining funds adversely impacted their ability to provide
services, because individuals who needed employment left the affected area
to search for work in other places or found other jobs instead of waiting
for grant funds to become available. For example, one project we visited
was only serving 20 of 50 eligible participants according to project
officers, because workers could not afford to wait for services, left the
area, or found other jobs.

Award Processing Time Was More Consistent during Program Year 2004

Labor's award processing times were more consistent across quarters in
program year 2004 than in program years 2000-2002. In program year 2004,
the average number of working days that Labor took to award grants for the
first 3 quarters ranged from 34 to 41 days, and only 16 days during the
fourth quarter. In program years 2000-2002, the number of days to award
grants during the first 3 quarters varied more widely-from 61 to 74 days
(see table 1).

    Average Award Times Improved in the First 2 Quarters of Program Year 2005

Table 1: Average Time to Award Grants by Quarter in Which Application Was
Received (Program Years 2000-2002 and Program Year 2004)

Average number of days Average number of days Quarter application to award
grants in to award grants in was received program years 2000-2002 program
year 2004

                                  First 61 34

                                  Second 74 40

                                  Third 71 41

                                  Fourth 19 16

Source: GAO analysis.

In addition, in program year 2004, the quarter in which an application was
awarded corresponded more closely to the quarter in which it was
submitted. This is in contrast to program years 2000-2002, when most
awards took place in the fourth quarter despite the fact that applications
were received at a fairly steady rate during the last 3 quarters of the
program year.

Average Award Times Improved in the First 2 Quarters of Program
Year 2005

During the first half of program year 2005, Labor awarded grants in 21
working days, on average, and 67 percent were awarded within 30 working
days. The overwhelming majority of these grants were in response to
Hurricane Katrina, many of which were awarded within a few working days.
For example, Louisiana submitted its application on September 1, 2005, and
Labor awarded the grant 1 day later. The quick approval time for most of
the Katrina-related grants reflected the hurricane's severity, the
commitment of Labor officials to provide assistance as quickly as
possible, and the ability of most grantees to submit streamlined,
emergency applications. Under Labor's regulations, grantees may file an
abbreviated application to receive emergency funding within 15 days of an
event that was declared a disaster by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency.

Grantees in the states that we visited had limited experience using the
new electronic application system in requesting incremental payments.
Moreover, Labor awarded only a relatively small number of increments in
program year 2004 and the first half of program year 2005. Approximately
60 percent of grants were awarded in one payment during program year 2004
and about 75 percent during the first 2 quarters of program year 2005.
Also, the period we examined was less than a year after most grantees had
received their initial award and, therefore, most had not yet submitted
applications for their next increments.

    Labor's Electronic System Does Not Capture the Entire Award Process

Despite improvements in average award timeliness, Labor's goal for
awarding new grant applications and its electronic application system
exclude important steps in the award process. More specifically, the time
needed to obtain the Secretary's approval and issue award notification
letters to grantees is not captured by the system and is not counted as
part of the 30-working-day goal. Labor's electronic application system
captures the time from the application submission date through the date
that its Office of National Response (ONR) approves the grant application.
However, from the grantees' point of view, the actual process continues
until the grant is reviewed and approved by the Secretary and an award
letter is issued (see fig. 6). Our prior work also identified this problem
with Labor's measurement process.6 In program year 2004 and the first half
of program year 2005, these steps added 11 working days, on average, to
award processing times. For example, officials in one state we visited
reported that, although they received verbal confirmation that an
application was approved, the service provider would not begin services
without formal assurance that they would be paid. Consequently, services
were delayed for more than 2 weeks until the official award letter was
received.

6

See GAO, National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to
Improve Award Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant
Awards and Improve Data GAO-04-496 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2004).

Page 17 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants

Figure 6: Differences between How GAO and Labor's Electronic Application
System Track the National Emergency Grant Award Process

    Users of Labor's Electronic Application System Reported Some Difficulties

Officials in all of the states we visited told us that, while their
experience with the new electronic application system has generally been
positive, they have encountered some technical problems. These included
minor problems that made the application process more difficult, as well
as more serious issues that forced grantees to submit applications outside
of the system. Some states had problems resolving technical questions
because, for example, the system would not allow users and Labor's
technical assistance staff to view the same screen and data
simultaneously. Officials in one state described a series of delays they
experienced in submitting an application because they could not view a
discrepancy in how a zip code had been entered on two different screens.

Officials in all four of the states we visited also reported more general
problems, including a lack of flexibility when modifying an existing
application. For example, officials in three states told us that they had
to adjust data to fit the system-in one case, by adding up data on
participants and services provided at different service centers and
entering it as information from one service center--and that the system
did not allow them to report changes in plans accurately. Officials in one
of these states told us they could not use the system for one of their
applications because several of its required fields, such as the number of
participants, did not apply to their application. In addition, officials
that we interviewed in all four of our site visits reported that Labor has
not systematically queried users for feedback on the problems faced while
using the new electronic application system. Several officials felt that
minor changes to the system, such as providing more room to explain
unusual features of some projects and better directions regarding how to
proceed from one screen to another, would make the system more efficient
and easier to use.

  Labor Has Made Progress in Collecting More Uniform Program Data

Labor has taken actions to improve its two sources of information on
national emergency grants-the quarterly progress reports and WIASRD. In
program year 2004, Labor implemented a new electronic quarterly progress
report system and required all grantees to use this system beginning in
January 2005. Since these actions have been taken, our analysis suggests
that most grantees have generally submitted required quarterly progress
reports to Labor electronically and have certified and reported the
required data elements. In addition, in August 2004, Labor issued guidance
that clarified that states were required to include information on
national emergency grants as part of their submissions to WIASRD. In that
year, 85 percent of all states that received national emergency grants
submitted national emergency grant data to WIASRD.

    Labor Has Taken Steps to Improve Quarterly Report Data

Labor's new electronic quarterly progress report system has enhanced its
ability to collect, review, and manage quarterly report information. More
specifically, the new system requires grantees to submit data
electronically, using a standard format in which all data fields are
defined. As a result, the system has improved the uniformity and
consistency of the progress report data Labor collects compared with our
findings from program years 2000-2002. Labor also issued guidance
specifying that beginning January 1, 2005, grantees would be required to
submit the progress reports using the new system for all grants awarded
after July 1, 2004 (the beginning of program year 2004). We found that
during program year 2004, grantees generally submitted electronic
quarterly progress reports as required. By contrast, for program years
2000-2002, we could not provide information on the extent that grantees
provided quarterly progress reports because the reports were not collected
on an integrated system and were not available electronically (see table
2).

Table 2: Number and Percent of Quarterly Progress Reports Provided by
Quarter Awarded (Program Year 2004)

Percent of expected Quarter Expected reports Actual reports reports
received

                                   1st 9 9100

2nd 64 52

3rd 27 22

4th 30 27

Total 130 110

Source: GAO analysis.

The new progress report system has also improved the completeness of the
data that Labor collects. During program year 2004, we found that all
grantees that were expected to provide data did in fact complete each of
the required data fields. Under the new system, grantees must enter basic
information-such as counts of participants, counts of services that are
provided, and expenditures at the grantee and project level-before they
can submit their reports electronically. By contrast, when we examined
reports submitted for program years 2000-2002, we found that the quarterly
report data were generally incomplete. For example, of 13 states for which
we sampled progress report data, only about half reported the number
enrolled in core and intensive services and just one reported expenditures
by type of service (see table 3).

Table 3: Information Contained in Progress Reports
                     Program years 2000-2002          Program year 2004
                                                                   Percentage of
                                                                          states
           Number of             Percentage                          expected to 
                                 of                                  
              states   Number of   states in                             provide 
         expected to states that sample that   Number of Number of   information 
                                                  states states      
             provide    provided    provided expected to        that        that 
                                             provide        provided    provided 
Data     information information information information information information 
element                                                              
Enrollment in                                                        
core services         13         7        54                45    45         100 
Enrollment in                                                        
intensive                                                            
services           13            5        38                45    45         100 
Enrollment in                                                        
training services    13       11          85                36    36         100 
Expenditure by                                                       
type of services      13          1        8                45    45         100 
Entered                                                              
employment         13         12          92                45    45         100 


                             Source: GAO analysis.
									  
    Labor Has Increased the Amount of Information on Grants in WIASRD									  

After Labor issued its August 2004 guidance on data submission to WIASRD,
the level of compliance with this requirement substantially increased. We
found that 44 of the 48 states that likely fell under this requirement (90
percent) submitted data as required during program year 2004. Officials in
all four states we visited reported that, overall, they did not encounter
problems submitting data to WIASRD as required by Labor. In contrast, in
program year 2001, only one of the six states that received

  Labor Monitors Projects for Compliance with Basic Program Requirements, but
  Some States Reported That Better Guidance Is Needed

the largest proportions of national emergency grant funds submitted data
to WIASRD (see table 4).

Table 4: Number of States That Submitted Data to WIASRD
                                Number of Number of
                       states in states required  Number of states Percentage 
Program year         analysis        to report        reporting  reporting 
2004                       51               48               44         90 
2001                        6                6                1         17 

Source: GAO analysis.

Note: We counted the District of Columbia as a state.

Although grantees are complying with the WIA data submission requirements,
some questions about the reliability of these data remain. As we reported
in November 2005,7 Labor requires states to validate the data it submits
to WIASRD, but it does not have methods in place to review state
validation efforts nor does it hold states accountable for complying with
its data requirements.

Labor's regional offices oversee each project to track its performance and
compliance with basic program rules and requirements, but several state
and local officials we interviewed told us that more specific guidance is
needed. Regional officials conduct a variety of monitoring activities,
including approving program operating plans, reviewing quarterly progress
reports, and conducting site visits. However, Labor has not issued
complete, program-specific guidance that would standardize monitoring
practices across regions, states, and local areas and help ensure
consistent practices. As a result, some states have developed their own
monitoring tools. In addition, officials in most of the states and local
areas we visited said that Labor does not regularly help disseminate
information about how states and local areas are managing and monitoring
their national emergency grant projects.

7

GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to
Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed, GAO-06-82
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2005).

Page 21 GAO-06-870 National Emergency Grants

    Labor's Regional Offices Monitor Projects for Compliance, but Labor Has Yet
    to Issue Complete Guidance for the Program

To ensure that projects effectively serve dislocated workers, Labor,
states, and local areas carry out a variety of monitoring activities
throughout the lifecycle of a project to track its progress toward meeting
its stated purpose and goals. Labor officials in the four regions we
visited told us that they follow the same general monitoring procedures
for all grants, but tailor them as necessary for high-risk or complex
grants. At the beginning of the grant, and at each quarter during the
lifecycle of the grant, regional officials assess the potential risk level
of the grant. They also review the project operating plan and analyze
quarterly financial and progress reports to assess their timeliness,
accuracy, and effectiveness in providing services to dislocated workers.
Regional officials we interviewed told us they generally conduct their
most comprehensive review at the project's midpoint by visiting grantees
and project operators. According to Labor's guidance on administering the
National Emergency Grant program, a major purpose of the on-site review
for incremental grants is to review the need for funds to complete the
project. The guidance also states that Labor officials will assess how
well a grantee and its project operators are meeting the major
requirements of the program. These include participant eligibility,
financial management controls, project management, effectiveness of
support services, and job placement services. For disaster grants, they
also include temporary jobs for dislocated workers. The regional officials
reported that they usually meet with state and local workforce officials,
including project operators and dislocated workers enrolled in the
project, and conduct an exit interview with cognizant officials to discuss
their findings.

According to officials in the four regions that we interviewed, Labor
modifies monitoring and reporting procedures as necessary to ensure that
these reviews are appropriate in terms of the special characteristics of
some grants. For example, one regional official said they visit projects
designated as "high risk" within 90 days after grant award, rather than
waiting until the project's midpoint, and work closely with the grantee
throughout the project. Another Labor official said they monitor a grantee
more closely if they identify potential problems. For example, if a
grantee is late in submitting its quarterly progress reports or falls
behind in enrolling dislocated workers in a project, the regional office
will conduct more extensive monitoring such as telephoning the grantees or
conducting additional site visits to determine the cause. Labor can also
require grantees to submit reports in addition to their regular quarterly
progress reports for unusually large or highly visible grants, such as
those awarded to serve Hurricane Katrina victims. According to workforce
officials in two states that received Katrina grants and a cognizant
regional official, they initially had to submit numerous reports with
different information on a daily basis, then every 3 days, and then on a
weekly, biweekly, and monthly basis.

Workforce officials in most of the states and local areas we visited told
us that Labor's oversight activities were generally beneficial and that
the monitoring activities often provided them with helpful feedback for
managing their grants. For example, an official in one local area said
that Labor's monitoring resulted in them strengthening their requirements
for maintaining critical documents in participant files. In this area,
local officials routinely required caseworkers to check a sample of their
coworkers' files to ensure that they were complete and contained
sufficient documentation to justify the services that were provided in
order to prepare for federal monitoring.

Despite the general satisfaction with Labor's monitoring efforts, we found
that the guidance states and local areas received varied widely. Labor
issued a draft monitoring guide specifically for national emergency grants
in late 2005, which was based on its generic Core Monitoring Guide.
Officials in three of the four states we visited said that they had
received a copy of the draft monitoring guide, but none of the local areas
we visited had. In fact, one regional office official we interviewed had
not yet received a copy of the guide. Further, state officials told us
that they had received different types of information from Labor to help
them prepare for their on-site monitoring visits. For example, officials
in all four states said that regional officials sent a list before their
visit of the documents and participant files that they needed to review.
An official in one state said that they had not always received written
guidance on how to conduct their own monitoring or prepare for Labor's
monitoring visits.

To compensate for the lack of consistent, complete guidance, all four
states we visited had developed their own tools for monitoring local
areas, and many of the local areas used their state's tool or a modified
version of it to monitor their service providers. For example, one local
area official told us they modified the state's tool by adding procedures
for reviewing the documents that support a dislocated worker's eligibility
to receive services. An official in another state told us that their
agency expanded the tool that it uses for its 90-day on-site monitoring
visit for its mid-point review by including a review of the documents in
participant files and project cost.

    Labor Has Not Disseminated Information on Promising Practices

Officials in most states and local areas we visited said they do not
currently have opportunities to share information about promising
practices for managing and monitoring national emergency grant projects,
but many expressed an interest in having such opportunities. Workforce
officials in one state and six local areas said that having Labor
facilitate opportunities for disseminating such information would help
project operators manage their projects more efficiently. For example,
according to officials in one local area, they had experience operating
grant projects that served dislocated workers in the agricultural sector,
but not in the manufacturing sector. When faced with a layoff in a
computer chip manufacturing plant, they had to take time to research
potential job openings and skills required for jobs in this sector. Having
information on how other areas served workers laid off by manufacturing
companies would have helped shorten the time they spent developing the
project and allowed them to serve workers more quickly. Officials in one
state also suggested that Labor could help by creating a central
repository of documents used in managing projects, such as examples of
agreements used to establish temporary worksites for disaster victims.
Although Labor has a Web site for sharing promising practices with the WIA
community, Labor has not used this tool for facilitating improved
information sharing about national emergency grants.

                                  Conclusions

National emergency grants are an important tool for helping states and
localities respond to mass layoffs and disasters that result in large
numbers of dislocated workers. When major layoffs and disasters such as
hurricanes or floods occur, states and local areas must respond quickly to
ensure that dislocated workers receive the services they need to re-enter
the workforce. While the National Emergency Grant program is relatively
small, the reemployment activities it funds are important for workers who
have been dislocated due to mass layoffs or natural disasters. In this
regard, it is critical for grant funds to reach program participants in a
timely manner. By implementing an automated application system, Labor has,
on average, substantially decreased the time required to award national
emergency grants. However, because this system does not capture the entire
grant process-including the time taken for the Secretary to issue final
award letters-there is room for further improvement. Moreover, while the
system has improved the timeliness of grant awards, some state and local
officials have encountered problems using the system. Effective management
and oversight requires a mechanism for states and localities to provide
feedback to Labor, to ensure that potential system weaknesses are
identified and addressed.

Effective monitoring is also a critical component of grant management.
While Labor's monitoring activities appear to provide reasonable assurance
that grant funds are being used for their intended purpose, some state and
local officials said that standardized guidance would be beneficial. In
particular, once Labor finalizes its monitoring guide for grants, state
and local officials responsible for grant administration and oversight
could benefit from more consistent, specific federal guidance. Moreover,
state and local officials could benefit from innovative project management
practices that have promoted efficiency and effectiveness in other states
where grant funds have been awarded. However, without disseminating such
information through a centralized mechanism, it is difficult for state and
local officials to learn of promising practices in other jurisdictions and
use this information early in the planning process.

  Recommendations for Executive Action 
  
In order for Labor to better manage the grant award process and system,
accurately assess the time it takes to award grant funds, and improve its
guidance to states and local areas, we recommend that the
Secretary of Labor take additional actions. In particular, Labor should

     o extend its electronic application system and its own timeliness
       measurement process to capture the entirety of the award process from
       the perspective of grant applicants, specifically through final
       approval and issuance of award letters by the Secretary;
     o solicit information from users of the application system to guide
       future refinements to this system;
     o distribute more complete guidance and tools for monitoring grant
       projects; and
     o explore cost-effective ways to disseminate information to states and
       local areas to help them learn about promising practices for managing
       national grant projects.

                                Agency Comments

The Department of Labor commented on a draft of this report, indicating
that it agrees with our findings and the intent of all four
recommendations (see app. III). Labor's comments also highlighted some
actions that it has already taken or plans to take. Labor reported that it
has recently implemented a new version of its electronic application
system that has expanded its capacity to manage all elements of the
application process. However, Labor did not directly address our
recommendation that the system be expanded to capture the entirety of the
awards process, including final approval and issuance of the award letters
by the Secretary. In addition, Labor agreed that information from users is
needed to guide future refinements to the system but noted that a survey
of all users might require a formal paperwork clearance process and,
therefore, would provide less timely information than its present system
involving user tests with selected grantees. While we agree that
information from user tests is useful, we believe feedback from all
grantees would better inform future enhancements. Regarding our
recommendation that it distribute more complete guidance and monitoring
tools, Labor explained that it is currently field-testing a monitoring
guide for national emergency grant projects, and plans to release this
guide by September 2006. We believe such a guide could be an important
step toward establishing consistent monitoring practices. Also, Labor
concurred with our recommendation that it explore cost-effective ways to
disseminate information to states and local areas to help them learn about
promising practices for managing national emergency grant projects. In
particular, Labor noted that it has relied upon venues such as national
conferences and forums to facilitate the sharing of information among
grantees. Labor did not provide technical comments on the draft.

We are sending 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
home page at http://www.gao.gov.

Please contact me on 202-512-7215 or at [email protected] if you or members
of 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 IV.

Sigurd R. Nilsen

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

                       Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

                             Timeliness Assessment

Our objectives were to (1) determine whether Labor has shortened grant
award times since our 2004 report and has been able to meet its own goal
of 30 working days for awarding grants, (2) examine the uniformity of the
program data that Labor is currently collecting, and (3) assess Labor's
monitoring and oversight of national emergency grant projects.

To examine how long it takes Labor to award national emergency grants and
determine whether Labor is meeting its 30-working-day timeliness goal, we
obtained a listing from Labor of all grants awarded during program year
2004 and the first 2 quarters of program year 2005. We selected this time
period because Labor implemented its new electronic application system and
streamlined application data requirements at the beginning of program year
2004. We computed (1) the number of working days between the date of the
original grant application and the date of the award letter to determine
overall grant award times and award times by type of grant and (2) the
percentage of grants that were awarded within Labor's timeliness goal of
30 working days. We supplemented data from Labor's electronic database
with data from its hard copy grant files, including information contained
in the award letters for all grants awarded during program year 2004,
because the application system did not contain data for all steps in the
awards process. We excluded two grants because they were not submitted
electronically.

 Table 5: Number of National Emergency Grants Awarded and Used in GAO Analysis

              Program year 2004 Program year 2005-first 2 Quarters

     Number of files with Number of grants complete information Type of grant
           awarded used in our analyses Number of files with Number of grants
                            complete information awarded used in our analyses

                             BRAC grants 39 39 0 0

                            Regular grants 26 25 2 2

                          Disaster grants 11 11 12 12

                            Dual enrollment 8 7 1 1

                               Total 84 82 15 15

Source: GAO analysis.

In order to compare the award processing times for program year 2004 with
program years 2000-2002, we converted calendar days to working days
because Labor's present day goal is expressed in working days.

                       Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

  Analysis of Program Data

To determine the degree that grantees submitted quarterly progress reports
with the required data elements, we analyzed the extent that grantees
submitted quarterly progress reports by quarter and the extent that
grantees completed required data fields during program year 2004. We
eliminated the BRAC planning grants from these analyses because quarterly
report data were designed to capture information on participants and
services, not planning activities. We compared the completeness of data
submitted during program year 2004 with the completeness of data submitted
during program years 2000-2002.

To assess the extent that grantees complied with requirements to summit
data to the WIASRD database, we identified states that received national
emergency grants in programs years 2002, 2003, and 2004, and, therefore,
were likely to have participants that left projects in program year 2004.
We examined the WIASRD database to see if it contained program year 2004
data for these states. We compared the percentage of grantees that
provided national emergency grant data to the database in 2004 with the
percentage that provided data in 2000, based on the sample of grantees
that were selected for our previous analysis in 2004.

  Assessment of Data Quality

To assess the reliability of data about award processing times, we
interviewed officials responsible for compiling these data. We verified
the accuracy of the application dates that Labor gave us by comparing them
with dates on the actual applications and dates on the electronic
application system. Also, we drew a 10-percent random sample of all grants
awarded in program year 2004 and the first 2 quarters of 2005 and verified
information in the electronic system with information in the official hard
copy grant files. To assess the reliability of information in the
electronic quarterly progress report system, we examined materials related
to data entry and examined the completeness of data submissions. Also, we
interviewed state and local officials regarding their data collection
procedures and verification processes. We determined the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report.

  Interviews with Labor Officials

We interviewed officials in the Office of National Response and the Office
of Grant and Contract Management in Labor's Employment and Training
Administration to obtain information on application processing, program
polices, and grants management. We also interviewed key staff in the
Office of Field Operations and officials in four regional offices where we
conducted site visits. They are in charge of monitoring and oversight to
obtain information on data reporting, oversight requirements, and
monitoring procedures. In addition, we interviewed officials representing
Labor's contractor to obtain technical information on the electronic
application system.

                                  Site Visits
											 
To learn more about the application system, data requirements, and
oversight from the grantees', service providers', and dislocated workers'
points of view, we conducted site visits to four states-Florida, Maine,
Oregon, and Texas. We selected these states because they each received a
substantial amount of national emergency grant funding and, together,
represented different geographical regions, had received a diversified mix
of regular, BRAC, disaster, and dual enrollment grants. (See table 5.) On
these site visits, we conducted in-depth interviews with state workforce
officials, representatives of local workforce investment boards, and
service providers. In addition, we visited four work sites that provided
temporary employment to individuals who had lost their jobs as a result of
Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma.

Table 6: Number of Grants Received during Program Year 2004 and the First
2 Quarters of Program Year 2005

               State Total Regular Disaster Dual enrollment BRAC

Florida 4 3

Maine 4 3

                                  Oregon 62 4

Texas 31 1

Source: GAO analysis.

Our work was conducted between September 2005 and July 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Summary of Funds Awarded for Regular, Disaster, and Dual Enrollment
Grants during Program Year 2004

                                    Regular
State                  BRAC    Non-BRAC    Disaster Dual             Total 
                                                       enrollment  
Alabama             $1,000,000 $235,619  $2,500,000             $3,735,619 
Alaska               615,000                                       615,000 
Arkansas            1,000,000               400,000              1,400,000 
California          1,370,000  7,285,457 11,665,000             20,320,457 
Commonwealth of the                                             
Northern                                                        
Mariana Islands                           2,000,000              2,000,000 
Colorado                       2,500,000                         2,500,000 
Connecticut         1,000,000   753,775                          1,753,775 
District of          950,000                                       950,000 
Columbia                                                        
Federated States                                                
of Micronesia                             2,288,320              2,288,320 
Florida             1,000,000            75,000,000             76,000,000 
Georgia             1,000,000  3,030,218                         4,030,218 
Guam                 475,000                                       475,000 
Hawaii                45,000                                        45,000 
Idaho                          1,817,046                         1,817,046 
Illinois            1,500,000                                    1,500,000 
Indiana             1,500,000                                    1,500,000 
Iowa                 382,000    658,519                          1,040,519 
Kansas               850,000    324,031                          1,174,031 
Kentucky             300,000                                       300,000 
Louisiana           1,000,000               392,288              1,392,288 
Maine               1,273,628  5,163,228                         6,436,856 
Maryland            1,237,500                          $378,000  1,615,500 
Massachusetts       1,000,000  6,656,568                         7,656,568 
Michigan             221,778                                       221,778 
Minnesota            500,000                                       500,000 
Mississippi          250,000                                       250,000 
Missouri            1,000,000  2,753,652                         3,753,652 
Montana               76,690   1,654,649                         1,731,339 
Nebraska              75,000                                        75,000 
Nevada               528,500                                       528,500 
New Hampshire                   347,967                            347,967 
New Mexico          1,000,000                                    1,000,000 
New York             730,000    615,750                          1,345,750 

Appendix II: Summary of Funds Awarded for Regular, Disaster, and Dual
Enrollment Grants during Program Year 2004

                                    Regular
State               BRAC Non-BRAC        Disaster Dual               Total 
                                                     enrollment  
North          1,000,000 10,014,637     7,000,000               18,014,637 
Carolina                                                      
North Dakota   1,000,000                                         1,000,000 
Ohio           1,000,000   285,516     19,570,845               20,856,361 
Oklahoma         250,000  1,294,351                              1,544,351 
Oregon                    1,807,462                   374,007    2,181,469 
Pennsylvania   1,000,000   217,540                 10,407,984   11,625,524 
Rhode Island               472,499                                 472,499 
South            500,000  1,984,638                              2,484,638 
Carolina                                                      
South Dakota   1,000,000   795,000                               1,795,000 
Tennessee                  670,000                                 670,000 
Texas            235,000  4,595,931                              4,830,931 
Virginia       1,000,000  3,924,493                              4,924,493 
West             616,764  1,924,604     2,000,000                4,541,368 
Virginia                                                      
Wisconsin         75,000  5,911,645                   369,902    6,356,547 
Total        $29,556,860 $67,694,795 $122,816,453 $11,529,893 $231,598,001 

                             Source: GAO analysis.

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Labor

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director (202) 512-7215

                                Acknowledgments

Jeremy D. Cox, Assistant Director; Kathleen D. White, Analyst-in-Charge;
Carolyn S. Blocker; and Daniel C. Cain served as team members and made
major contributions to all aspects of this report. In addition, Catherine
Hurley and Jean McSween advised on methodological and analytic aspects of
this report; Susan Bernstein advised on report preparation; Jessica
Botsford advised on legal issues; Yunsian Tai helped conduct data
analyses; Robert Alarapon provided graphic design assistance; and
Katharine Leavitt verified our findings.

Related GAO Products

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Labor Should Take Action to Ensure
Performance Data Are Complete, Accurate, and Accessible. GAO-06-496.
Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2006.

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Most Workers in Five Layoffs Received
Services, but Better Outreach Needed on New Benefits. GAO-06-43.
Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2006.

Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to Improve
Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. GAO-06-82. Washington,
D.C.: November 14, 2005.

Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but
Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650.
Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005.

Unemployment Insurance: Better Data Needed to Assess Reemployment Services
to Claimants. GAO-05-413. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2005.

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches to
Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements. GAO-05-539.
Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005.

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms Have Accelerated Training Enrollment,
but Implementation Challenges Remain. GAO-04-1012. Washington, D.C.:
September 22, 2004.

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

National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Improve Award
Process, but Further Actions Are Required to Expedite Grant Awards and
Improve Data. GAO-04-496. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004.

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

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

Related GAO Products

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Experiences of Six Trade-Impacted
Communities. GAO-01-838. Washington, D.C.: August 24, 2001.

Trade Adjustment Assistance: Trends, Outcomes, and Management Issues in
Dislocated Worker Programs. GAO-01-59. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 2000.

(130518)

  GAO's Mission

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

Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

                             Order by Mail or Phone

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

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

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

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

  E-mail: [email protected]

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

Congressional Relations

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


  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. ***