Employment and Training Program Grants: Evaluating Impact and	 
Enhancing Monitoring Would Improve Accountability (07-MAY-08,	 
GAO-08-486).							 
                                                                 
Since 2001, Labor has spent nearly $900 million on three	 
workforce employment and training grant initiatives: High Growth 
Job Training Initiative (High Growth), Community-Based Job	 
Training Initiative (Community Based), and the Workforce	 
Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED). GAO was	 
asked to examine (1) the intent of the grant initiatives and the 
extent to which Labor will be able to assess their effects, (2)  
the extent to which the process used competition, was adequately 
documented, and included key players, and (3) what Labor is doing
to monitor individual grantee compliance with grant requirements.
To answer these questions, GAO obtained from Labor a list of	 
grants for fiscal years 2001 through 2007, and reviewed relevant 
laws and Labor's internal grant award procedures. GAO interviewed
grantees, and state and local workforce officials in seven states
where grantees were located, Labor officials, and subject matter 
experts.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-486 					        
    ACCNO:   A81983						        
  TITLE:     Employment and Training Program Grants: Evaluating Impact
and Enhancing Monitoring Would Improve Accountability		 
     DATE:   05/07/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Competition					 
	     Documentation					 
	     Employee development				 
	     Employee training					 
	     Employment 					 
	     Employment assistance programs			 
	     Employment requirements				 
	     Fund audits					 
	     Funds management					 
	     Grant administration				 
	     Grant monitoring					 
	     Grants						 
	     Grants to states					 
	     Information management				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Labor force					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Training utilization				 
	     Community and supportive services			 
	     programs						 
                                                                 
	     Program coordination				 
	     Program implementation				 
	     DOL Community-Based Job Training			 
	     Initiative 					 
                                                                 
	     DOL High Growth Job Training Initiative		 
	     DOL Workforce Innovation in Regional		 
	     Economic Development (WIRED)			 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-486

   

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. 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. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

May 2008: 

Employment and Training Program Grants: 

Evaluating Impact and Enhancing Monitoring Would Improve 
Accountability: 

GAO-08-486: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-486, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Since 2001, Labor has spent nearly $900 million on three workforce 
employment and training grant initiatives: High Growth Job Training 
Initiative (High Growth), Community-Based Job Training Initiative 
(Community Based), and the Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic 
Development (WIRED). GAO was asked to examine (1) the intent of the 
grant initiatives and the extent to which Labor will be able to assess 
their effects, (2) the extent to which the process used competition, 
was adequately documented, and included key players, and (3) what Labor 
is doing to monitor individual grantee compliance with grant 
requirements. To answer these questions, GAO obtained from Labor a list 
of grants for fiscal years 2001 through 2007, and reviewed relevant 
laws and Laborï¿½s internal grant award procedures. GAO interviewed 
grantees, and state and local workforce officials in seven states where 
grantees were located, Labor officials, and subject matter experts. 

What GAO Found: 

According to Labor officials, the grant initiatives were designed to 
shift the focus of the public workforce system toward the training and 
employment needs of high-growth, in-demand industries, but Labor will 
be challenged to assess their impact. Under the initiatives, Labor 
awarded 349 grants totaling almost $900 million to foster this change. 
However, the grant initiatives were not fully integrated into Laborï¿½s 
strategic plan or overall research agenda; therefore, it is unclear 
what criteria Labor will use to evaluate their effectiveness. Labor 
lacks data that will allow it to compare outcomes for grant-funded 
services to those of other federally funded employment and training 
services. 

While grants under all three initiatives are now awarded competitively, 
the initial noncompetitive process for High Growth grants was not 
adequately documented and did not include key players. Community Based 
and WIRED grants have always been awarded competitively, but more than 
80 percent of High Growth grants were awarded without competition. 
Labor began awarding some High Growth grants competitively in 2005 and 
Congress required Labor to award certain grants competitively in fiscal 
years 2007 and 2008. This requirement applies only to those years. 
Labor could not document criteria used to select the noncompetitive 
High Growth grants or whether these grants met internal or statutory 
requirements. Labor has taken steps to strengthen the noncompetitive 
process, but these procedures do not explicitly require documentation 
of compliance with statutory program requirements. Laborï¿½s process for 
identifying solutions for industry workforce challenges did not include 
the vast majority of local workforce investment boards, which oversee 
local employment and training services. 

Labor provides some monitoring for grantees under all three initiatives 
and uses a risk-based monitoring approach for the High Growth and 
Community Based grants, but not for WIRED. Labor has a process to 
address findings from single audit reports, but its inspector general 
found problems with Laborï¿½s follow up on the completion of these audits 
for its grantees in general and recommended that Labor put procedures 
in place to do so. Labor provides technical assistance for the three 

initiatives and spent $16 million on contracts to help offer this 
support. 

Table: Number of Grants and Funds Awarded Competitively and 
Noncompetitively, Fiscal Years 2001-2007 (Dollars in millions): 

Grant Initiative: High Growth; 
Number of grants: 166; 
Competitively awarded amount: $31.8; 
Noncompetitively awarded amount: $263.8; 
Totals by grant initiative: $295.6. 

Grant Initiative: Community Based; 
Number of grants: 142; 
Competitively awarded amount: $250.0; 
Noncompetitively awarded amount: 0; 
Totals by grant initiative: $250.0. 

Grant Initiative: WIRED; 
Number of grants: 41; 
Competitively awarded amount: $324.0; 
Noncompetitively awarded amount: 0; 
Totals by grant initiative: $324.0. 

Grant Initiative: Total; 
Number of grants: 349; 
Competitively awarded amount: $605.8; 
Noncompetitively awarded amount: $263.8; 
Totals by grant initiative: $869.6. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data. 

Note: Total dollar amount varies from Laborï¿½s reported figure due to 
rounding. 

[End of table] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that Labor take steps to ensure that it can evaluate the 
initiativesï¿½ impact, documents compliance with statutory program 
requirements for noncompetitive grant awards, and develops and 
implements a risk-based monitoring approach for WIRED grants. Labor 
said that it either had taken initial steps or planned to take steps to 
address these issues. Because these efforts were either preliminary or 
planned, GAO continues to stand by the recommendations. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-486]. For more 
information, contact George Scott (202)512-7215 [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Grants Are Intended to Change the Workforce System, but Labor Will Be 
Challenged to Evaluate Their Impact: 

The Initial Noncompetitive Process Was Not Adequately Documented and 
Did Not Include Key Players: 

Labor Uses a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach for High Growth and 
Community Based Grants but Not for WIRED Grants: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: High Growth, Community Based, and WIRED Grantees through 
September 30, 2007, by Initiative and State: 

Appendix III: Department of Labor Technical Assistance Contracts: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Total Number and Amount of Grants Awarded by Labor, 2001-2007: 

Table 2: The Number of High Growth Grants and Funds Awarded 
Competitively and Noncompetitively between Fiscal Years 2001 and 2007: 

Table 3: Industry Sector Solutions Forums and the Number of 
Participants: 

Table 4 Status of Risk-Based Monitored Grants as of September 30, 2007: 

Table 5: High Growth Grantees: 

Table 6: Community Based Grantees: 

Table 7: WIRED Grantees: 

Table 8: Department of Labor Technical Assistance Contracts Related to 
High Growth, Community Based and WIRED Grant Initiatives: 

Figure: 

Figure 1: Number of Workforce Investment Boards and States with 
Participants at Solutions Forums: 

Abbreviations: 

ACWIA: American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act: 

ETA: Employment and Training Administration: 

WIA: Workforce Investment Act: 

WIRED: Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

May 7, 2008: 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy: 
Chairman:
The Honorable Michael B. Enzi: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Tom Harkin: 
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and 
Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Patty Murray: 
Chair: 
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: 
United States Senate: 

Federally funded training and employment services are delivered through 
what is known as the one-stop system, which was developed under the 
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 and is governed by state and 
local workforce investment boards. Sixteen categories of programs, 
funded by four federal agencies, deliver their services through this 
system. In large part, program performance is measured by collecting 
standard measures on the outcomes of individuals who use these 
services. Under WIA, the Department of Labor (Labor) has general 
responsibility and oversight of the one-stop system. 

Since 2001, Labor has spent almost $900 million on three employment and 
training grant initiatives to address what Labor perceived as 
shortcomings in the one-stop service delivery system: the High Growth 
Job Training Initiative (High Growth) beginning in 2001, the Community 
Based Job Training Initiative (Community Based) beginning in 2005, and 
the Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED) 
initiative beginning in 2006. In 2005 Congress expressed interest in 
how Labor was awarding the High Growth grants and instituted a number 
of reporting requirements, including a justification for sole source 
awards. 

Given the size of the investment and the interest in noncompetitive 
awards, we were asked to examine: (1) the intent of the grant 
initiatives and the extent to which Labor will be able to assess their 
effects; (2) the extent to which the process used competition, was 
adequately documented, and included key players; and (3) what Labor is 
doing to monitor individual grantee compliance with grant requirements. 

To determine the intent of the grant initiatives and the extent to 
which Labor will be able to assess their effects, we reviewed grant 
applications, grantee quarterly reports, Labor's strategic plan, and 
documents related to evaluations of the initiatives and their purpose. 
We obtained a list of all High Growth, Community Based, and WIRED 
grants from Labor for fiscal year 2001, the first year High Growth 
grants were awarded, through fiscal year 2007. We assessed the 
reliability of these data by (1) reviewing the data for obvious errors 
and completeness, (2) reviewing related documentation, and (3) 
interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We 
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 
this report. We also interviewed relevant Labor officials and persons 
with recognized workforce and training expertise. To determine the 
extent to which the process used competition, was adequately 
documented, and included key players, we reviewed relevant laws, 
Labor's internal procedures for awarding grants, and Labor's inspector 
general's report on High Growth grants. Out of a universe of about 340 
grantees provided by Labor at the time of our review, we selected 8 for 
in-depth study. These were selected because each grant exceeded $1 
million, and they represented the range of grant types. These grantees 
were located in seven states: Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New 
Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New York, and Washington. For each grantee, we 
conducted semi-structured interviews and reviewed each grantee's 
application and recent quarterly reports. We also interviewed state and 
local workforce officials in these states. To address what Labor is 
doing to monitor the performance of grantees, we reviewed Labor's 
monitoring procedures, six grantee monitoring reports provided by Labor 
as examples, and the single audit of a grantee we contacted. We also 
reviewed a list of High Growth and Community Based grants that had been 
monitored by Labor. See appendix I for a more detailed discussion of 
the scope and methodology. We conducted our work from May 2007 to May 
2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 

Results in Brief: 

According to Labor officials, the grant initiatives were designed to 
change the focus of the public workforce system to emphasize the 
employment and training needs of high-growth, high-demand industries, 
but Labor will be challenged to assess their impact because it did not 
plan well at the outset to identify performance goals and collect data 
comparable to those it collects from other programs. For the three 
grant initiatives, Labor awarded 349 grants totaling almost $900 
million intended to identify the workforce and training needs of 
growing, high-demand industries; engage workforce, industry, and 
educational partners to develop innovative solutions to workforce 
challenges; leverage a wide array of resources to fund the solutions; 
and integrate workforce and economic development to transform regional 
economies. While Labor said the three grant initiatives were necessary 
to shift the focus of the workforce investment system, experts said 
that some state and local workforce boards were already pursuing 
strategies focusing on high-growth, high-demand industries, but there 
was little consensus on the extent to which this was occurring. In 
addition, experts identified a number of systematic factors that might 
explain why workforce boards face challenges in pursuing such 
strategies (for example, statutory requirements to target services to 
certain groups of workers). Beyond the question of how extensive such 
practices were, Labor officials said that a number of indicators show 
the initiatives are changing the system in line with their intended 
goals (for example, an increased focus on workforce challenges and 
solutions at workforce system conferences). However, 7 years after 
awarding the first grant, Labor will be challenged to evaluate their 
effect. These grant initiatives were not fully integrated into either 
Labor's strategic plan or its overall research agenda at the outset; 
therefore, it is unclear what criteria Labor will use to evaluate their 
effectiveness. Labor is working to require grantees to collect the same 
data on performance outcomes, called common measures, that are used to 
evaluate outcomes for individuals served by other programs. Comparable 
outcome data are essential to assessing the impact of these initiatives 
because without it Labor will lack a common point of comparison. 

While Labor now awards grants under all three grant initiatives 
competitively, the initial noncompetitive process for awarding High 
Growth grants was not adequately documented and did not include key 
players. Community Based and WIRED grants have always been awarded 
competitively, but more than 80 percent of High Growth grants, which 
represented almost 90 percent of the High Growth dollars--over $263 
millionï¿½were awarded noncompetitively even though federal law and 
Labor's internal procedures recommend competition. Labor began awarding 
some High Growth grants competitively in 2005; and Congress, in the 
fiscal year 2007 and 2008 appropriation laws, required Labor to 
competitively award High Growth grants funded under one of the two laws 
that authorize High Growth grants. Labor could not provide 
documentation of the initial criteria it used for selecting High Growth 
grants awarded without competition or whether these grants met 
requirements of the laws authorizing the grants or Labor's own 
procedures for awarding grants without competition. Labor has taken 
steps to strengthen the process used for awarding noncompetitive 
grants; however, the procedures do not explicitly identify the 
statutory program requirements for which compliance should be 
documented. In addition, some state and local workforce investment 
board officials said that Labor's process for identifying solutions to 
workforce challenges did not include them even though the Workforce 
Investment Act makes these boards central to the workforce system. 
Labor said it invited participation from workforce investment boards 
that were pursuing innovative workforce solutions and went so far as to 
enlist state coordinators to find them. Yet, even with these efforts, 
Labor's list of participants shows that only 26 of the roughly 650 
local workforce investment boards representing 15 states were at the 
meetings. Promising ideas that originated at these meetings were 
shepherded by Labor through the awards process. 

Labor provides some monitoring of grantees under all three initiatives 
and uses a risk-based monitoring approach for High Growth and Community 
Based grants, but not for WIRED grants. As part of monitoring, Labor 
officials said they have a process for ensuring that grantees resolve 
findings in single audit reports. However, Labor's inspector general 
found that Labor did not have procedures to require follow up on past 
due audit reports and recommended Labor implement such procedures. 
Although Labor has done so, Labor's inspector general has not yet 
determined if these procedures adequately address the recommendation. 
As another part of its monitoring, Labor requires High Growth, 
Community Based, and WIRED grantees to submit quarterly financial and 
performance reports, but is still working to ensure the consistency of 
performance reports provided by High Growth and Community Based 
grantees. Labor provides technical assistance to help grantees comply 
with grant requirements, such as orientation sessions and guides on 
managing High Growth and Community Based grants. Labor officials said 
they have provided extensive technical assistance to each WIRED grantee 
including weekly contact and annual site visits to the first 13 WIRED 
grantees. In addition, Labor has spent $16 million on contracts to 
provide grantees with technical assistance and support. While these 
efforts help grantees manage their grants, they do not provide a risk- 
based monitoring process. In line with suggested grant practices, Labor 
uses a risk-based strategy to monitor High Growth and Community Based 
grants, selecting monitored grantees based on indications of potential 
problems. Labor has monitored about half of the High Growth grants and 
over one-quarter of the Community Based grants. Labor officials said 
they are developing a WIRED grant assessment tool they plan to 
implement in spring 2008; however, the department has not finalized the 
tool nor developed a schedule for its use. 

To determine the impact of these three grant programs, ensure that the 
best possible projects are selected, and improve accountability of 
grant funds, we are recommending that the Secretary of Labor take steps 
to ensure that the agency can evaluate the impact of the initiatives, 
and that the agency identify the statutory program requirements for 
which compliance must be documented when awarding noncompetitive 
grants. In addition, we recommend that the Secretary develop and 
implement a risk-based monitoring approach for WIRED and a schedule for 
its use. 

We provided a draft of the report to Labor for review and comment. In 
response to our first recommendation, Labor said it has taken initial 
steps to evaluate the impact of the initiatives and disagreed with our 
assertion that the initiatives are not integrated into its strategic 
plan. We agree that the agency has taken initial steps, but these do 
not ensure that they will be able to assess the initiatives' impact. We 
do not dispute that the strategic plan mentions the initiatives; 
however, we found that both the strategic and research plans do not tie 
the High Growth or WIRED initiatives to performance goals. In response 
to our second recommendation, Labor said it recently developed 
procedures to document noncompetitive grant proposals' compliance with 
statutory requirements. Our review of the documents supporting these 
procedures found no specific reference to statutory program 
requirements against which proposals would be checked for compliance. 
We revised our draft recommendation to clarify that we are asking Labor 
to identify the statutory program requirements for which compliance 
should be documented. In response to our third recommendation, Labor 
said it plans to implement a risk-based monitoring approach. We 
continue to recommend that Labor follow through with this effort. 

Labor disagreed with several of our findings. It questioned whether it 
needed comparable outcome data. However, we believe that data which 
allow comparisons of the initiative participants' outcomes with those 
of participants in WIA formula programs are important. Labor's own 
documents suggest that these types of comparisons are warranted. The 
department also stated that workforce boards do not face challenges 
that cannot be overcome in pursuing demand driven practices encouraged 
under the three initiatives. However, it acknowledged that it made 
efforts to provide workforce boards with assistance in implementing 
demand-driven approaches, some of which may address challenges GAO 
identified. Labor suggested that changing selection criteria was not 
improper; however, the absence of selection criteria or their changing 
over time affects the transparency of the non-competitive grant award 
process. The department noted that there are no rules for documenting 
the decision-making process for non-competitive grants, but agreed that 
additional documentation would be valuable. 

Background: 

When it was enacted in 1998, WIA created a new, comprehensive workforce 
investment system designed to change the way employment and training 
services are delivered. Under WIA, each state establishes a state 
workforce investment board that, among other duties, determines 
strategic priorities, current and projected employment opportunities, 
and job skills necessary to obtain such employment. It also designates 
local workforce investment areas across the state and develops an 
allocation formula for distributing funds to those local areas. Each 
local area is governed by local workforce investment boards that make 
decisions about the number and location of one-stop career centers, 
where partner programs make their services and activities available. 
Local boards are required to promote employers' participation in the 
workforce investment system and assist them in meeting hiring needs. 
Training services provided must be directly linked to occupations in 
demand in the local area. To further the involvement of employers, WIA 
requires that more than half the members of each state and local 
workforce investment board be representatives of business. The purpose 
of the one-stop system is to increase the employment, retention, and 
earnings of job seekers and, by increasing their occupational skills, 
enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the national economy. 
WIA requires states and localities to track the performance of WIA- 
funded activities and Labor to hold states accountable for their 
performance in the areas of job placement, employment retention, and 
earnings change. 

The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) oversees the High 
Growth, Community Based, and Wired grant initiatives. The vast majority 
of these grants are awarded under a provision of WIA,[Footnote 1] which 
provides authority for demonstration, pilot, multi-service, research, 
and multi-state projects, and a provision of the American 
Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA),[Footnote 2] 
which provides authority for job training grants funded by the H-1B 
visa program.[Footnote 3] [Footnote 4] 

Labor is required to conduct impact evaluations of its programs and 
activities carried out under WIA, including pilot and demonstration 
projects.[Footnote 5] While impact evaluations make it possible to 
isolate a program's effect on participants' outcomes, there are several 
ways to conduct them, including experimental and quasi-experimental 
methods.[Footnote 6] In 2004[Footnote 7] and 2007,[Footnote 8] GAO 
recommended that Labor comply with WIA requirements to conduct an 
impact evaluation of WIA services to determine what services are most 
effective for improving employment-related outcomes. Labor agreed with 
our recommendation. In December 2007, the agency announced it had begun 
a quasi-experimental evaluationï¿½an impact evaluation that does not use 
a control group--of the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs, with 
a final report expected in November 2008. 

Federal law recommends, but does not require that all grants be awarded 
through competition. The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act 
encourages competition in grant programs, where appropriate, to ensure 
that the best possible projects are funded.[Footnote 9] In addition, 
Labor's own guidance governing procurement and grant operations--the 
Department of Labor Manual Series--states that competition is 
recommended, unless one or more of eight exceptions apply.[Footnote 10] 
Further, a guide on improving grant accountability developed by the 
Domestic Working Group Grant Accountability Project recommends grants 
be awarded competitively because competition facilitates 
accountability, promotes fairness and openness, and increases assurance 
that grantees have the systems in place to efficiently and effectively 
use funds to meet grant goals.[Footnote 11] 

Effective monitoring is also a critical component of grant management. 
The Domestic Working Group's suggested grant practices states that 
financial and performance monitoring is important to ensure 
accountability and the attainment of performance goals. Labor monitors 
most grants through a risk-based strategy based on its "Core Monitoring 
Guide." A key goal is to determine compliance with specific program 
requirements. The guide includes five monitoring areas: program design 
and governance, program and grant management systems, financial 
management systems, service, and product delivery, and performance 
accountability. In addition, entities receiving Labor grants are 
subject to the provisions of the Single Audit Act if certain conditions 
are met.[Footnote 12] The act established the concept of the single 
audit to replace multiple grant audits with one audit of a recipient as 
a whole. As such, a single audit is an organization wide audit that 
covers, among other things, the recipient's internal controls and its 
compliance with applicable provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, 
and grants. 

Grants Are Intended to Change the Workforce System, but Labor Will Be 
Challenged to Evaluate Their Impact: 

According to Labor officials, the grant initiatives are designed to 
change the focus of the public workforce system to emphasize the 
employment and training needs of high-growth, high-demand industries, 
but Labor will be challenged in assessing their impact. For the three 
grant initiatives, Labor awarded 349 grants totaling almost $900 
million that were intended to bring about this change by identifying 
the workforce and training needs of growing, high-demand industries; 
engaging workforce, industry, and educational partners to develop 
innovative solutions to workforce challenges, such as worker shortages; 
leveraging a wide array of resources to fund the solutions; and 
integrating workforce and economic development to transform regional 
economies by creating good jobs. However, 7 years after awarding the 
first grant, Labor will be challenged to evaluate the effect of the 
grants. 

Labor Said the Grants Are Designed to Make the Workforce System More 
Focused on High-Growth, High-Demand Industries: 

According to Labor officials, the High Growth, Community Based, and 
WIRED initiatives are designed to collectively change the focus of the 
workforce investment system by giving greater emphasis to the 
employment and training needs of high-growth, high-demand industries. 
They characterized High Growth as a systematic change initiative 
designed to make the system more demand-driven (i.e., focused on the 
needs of growing and high-demand industries) and to make the system's 
approach to workforce development more strategic by engaging business, 
industry, and education partners to identify workforce challenges and 
solutions.[Footnote 13] The Computing Technology Industry Association 
provides one example of the kinds of activities funded under these 
grants. It used its High Growth grant to expand an apprenticeship 
program in a growing industry--information technology. As a related 
effort, the Community Based grants were designed to build the training 
capacity of community colleges for high-growth, high-demand 
occupations. In expanding existing training programs and developing new 
programs aimed at addressing worker shortages in three high-demand 
health care occupations--nursing, dental hygiene, and health unit 
coordinators, the Seattle Central Community College in Washington 
provides an example of efforts funded under these grants. The goal of 
third grant initiative, WIRED, was to "catalyze" the creation of high- 
skill and high-wage opportunities for workers within the context of 
regional economies, to test models for integrating workforce and 
economic development, and to demonstrate that workforce development is 
a key driver in transforming regional economies. The northeast region 
of Pennsylvania provides one example of the types of projects funded 
through WIRED. Pennsylvania is using WIRED grant funds to develop Wall 
Street West, a nine county regional project intended to provide backup 
and disaster recovery operations and facilities for the New York City 
financial markets. According to Labor officials, these funds support 
workforce education and training to support this effort. From 2001 
through 2007, Labor awarded 349 grants totaling almost $900 million for 
these initiatives (see table 1). For a list of these grants, see 
appendix II. 

Table 1: Total Number and Amount of Grants Awarded by Labor, 2001-2007: 

Grant initiative: High Growth; 
Number of grants: 166; 
Amount: $295,522,793. 

Grant initiative: Community Based; 
Number of grants: 142; 
Amount: $250,000,000. 

Grant initiative: WIRED; 
Number of grants: 41; 
Amount: $323,999,944. 

Grant initiative: Total; 
Number of grants: 349; 
Amount: $869,522,737. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data. 

[End of table] 

While Labor said the three grant initiatives were necessary to shift 
the focus of the workforce investment system, experts held varying 
opinions on the extent to which state and local workforce boards were 
pursuing demand-driven strategies on their own. Of the experts we spoke 
with, one said that many states were already focusing on high-growth 
sectors, reaching out to industry, and developing strategic 
partnerships. Another characterized innovation among workforce boards 
as a normal curve that ranged from highly functional to less than 
functional. One said that some boards had always been pursuing these 
types of strategies. Another said that the system had been lacking in 
this regard. 

In addition, when considering how extensive demand-driven practices 
might have been, experts identified a number of systematic factors that 
might explain why workforce boards would face challenges in pursuing 
them. These included insufficient funding, limited flexibility in how 
funds can be used, statutory requirements to target services to certain 
groups of workers, and the need to respond to local economic 
conditions. Commenting on workforce boards' ability to form strategic 
partnerships, one expert noted that there are no funds to support such 
endeavors and no performance standards to measure them. With regard to 
regional economic development, experts said boards are structured 
around local areas, not regions, regional economies are highly 
variable, regional governance structures can make achieving buy-in 
difficult and that rural areas can be particularly challenged in 
pursuing regional approaches. 

Beyond the question of how extensive demand-driven practices were, 
Labor officials said a number of indicators show that the initiatives 
are changing the system. According to Labor, they have seen a "system- 
shift" in the approach to implementing workforce solutions through an 
increase in demand-driven topics at conferences since the roll out of 
the initiatives. Labor said this shift has been driven by partnerships 
between the workforce investment system, business, industry, and 
educators using the High Growth framework. Labor also said it is seeing 
demand-driven strategies in state and local strategic plans and in 
states using their own money to fund High Growth-like projects. Labor 
pointed out that the system has evolved to the point where high 
performing local workforce boards with demand-driven practices are 
mentoring lesser performers. Lastly, Labor said the content on its Web 
site, Workforce3 One, was also evidence of change. For example, Labor 
held an interactive seminar broadcast on this site to train 
participants to use an on-line tool to share curricula developed 
through the initiatives. 

Seven Years after Awarding the First Grant, Labor Will Be Challenged to 
Evaluate Their Impact: 

Despite the money invested and emphasis placed on these initiatives, 
Labor did not fully integrate them into its strategic plan or ETA's 
research plan from the start. The Government Performance and Results 
Act states that strategic plans shall contain strategic goals and 
objectives, including outcome-related, or performance goals, and 
objectives for an agency's major functions and operations.[Footnote 14] 
However, the strategic plan includes performance goals only for the 
Community Based initiative. High Growth and WIRED--the two initiatives 
where Labor spent the most moneyï¿½are mentioned in the strategic plan, 
but not specifically linked to a performance goal; therefore, it is 
unclear what criteria Labor will use to evaluate their effectiveness. 
Moreover, the data needed to assess the performance of these 
initiatives are not specified. Labor officials said the strategic plan 
did not address the initiatives because it focuses on budget issues. 
Just as the initiatives are not fully integrated into the strategic 
plan, neither are they fully integrated into ETA's research plan, which 
cites plans for future evaluations, but it does not specify an 
assessment of their impact. 

Not fully incorporating the initiatives into its strategic or research 
plans may have limited Labor's ability to collect consistent outcome 
data. Labor said that prior to 2005, it consistently collected data 
from grantees on the number of participants enrolled in and completing 
training funded under High Growth--the only one of the three grant 
initiatives operating at that time. However, it did not collect 
performance outcomes similar to those being collected for its other 
training and employment services.[Footnote 15] In 2005, Labor 
instituted what were called common measures to assess the effectiveness 
of one-stop programs and services. The common measures include 
participant employment outcomes, earnings, and job retention after 
receiving services. Currently, Labor cannot require High Growth and 
Community Based grantees to provide data on the common measures until 
it receives OMB approval. According to Labor, it can collect such 
measures for WIRED grantees, but it has not yet done so.[Footnote 16] 
As a result, Labor may not have consistent data for individuals 
participating in the programs funded under the grant initiatives. In 
addition, it may lack data that will allow it to compare outcomes for 
individuals served by grant-funded programs with those served by 
employment and training programs offered through the one-stop system. 
Having comparable outcome data is important because the goal of an 
impact evaluation is to determine if outcomes are attributable to a 
program or can be explained by other factors. 

Labor will face challenges in obtaining the data necessary to make 
meaningful comparisons. Starting in 2006, Labor included information on 
the common measures in all new solicitations for High Growth and 
Community Based grants, notified grantees of its goal for standardizing 
performance reporting, and provided technical assistance to help 
grantees prepare for it. Labor also encouraged grantees to work with 
local workforce system partners to leverage their experience in 
tracking and reporting performance outcomes. Labor anticipates having 
an OMB approved reporting format in place by July 1, 2008. However, 
because some of the first grantees have already completed their 
projects, obtaining information about workers that have left the 
program may prove difficult and costly. 

Labor has some plans underway to evaluate the initiatives, but may face 
challenges drawing strong conclusions from them. Labor has conducted an 
evaluation of the implementation and sustainability of 20 early High 
Growth grantees. It is now evaluating the impact of the training 
provided by High Growth grantees. Labor anticipates the final report in 
December 2008. However, Labor has already experienced a number of 
challenges in evaluating the initiatives. These include having to limit 
its evaluation to only 6 grantees of 166, because only 6 had sufficient 
participants to ensure a statistically significant evaluation. They 
also include problems gaining access to workers' earnings data, and 
inconsistent outcome data from grantees. 

Labor officials said they plan to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 
the Community Based initiative. The first phase of the evaluation will 
examine the extent to which the Community Based grants addressed the 
stated workforce objectives and challenges funded projects were 
intended to address, as well as document the role of business and the 
workforce investment system in the overall success of the grants, 
according to Labor. This phase will also include an examination of the 
feasibility of performing an impact evaluation and will be completed in 
late 2008. Depending on the results of this phase, Labor officials said 
an impact evaluation will begin in 2009. 

For its evaluation of the WIRED initiatives, Labor says it is examining 
the implementation and cumulative effects of WIRED strategies, 
including change in the number and size of companies in targeted high- 
growth industries and whether new training led to job placement in the 
targeted industries. It contracted with the Berkeley Policy Associates 
to conduct the evaluation for the first 13 grantees, and a final report 
is expected by June 2010. It also contracted with Public Policy 
Associates to similarly evaluate the 28 remaining WIRED grantees. Labor 
officials said these initiatives are not included in the agency's 
broader WIA impact study. 

The Initial Noncompetitive Process Was Not Adequately Documented and 
Did Not Include Key Players: 

While Labor now awards grants under all three grant initiatives 
competitively, initially almost all High Growth grants were awarded 
without competition. Labor also did not document the criteria for 
selecting noncompetitive High Growth grants or whether they met Labor's 
internal requirements or the requirements of the laws under which the 
grants are authorized. In addition, Labor's process for identifying 
workforce solutions did not include most of the state and local 
workforce investment boards. 

All Three Types of Grants Are Now Awarded Competitively, but the Vast 
Majority of High Growth Grants Were Awarded Without Competition: 

The Community Based and the WIRED grants have always been awarded 
through a competitive process, but until 2005, Labor did not award High 
Growth grants competitively even though federal law and Labor's 
internal procedures recommend competition. While Labor had discretion 
in awarding High Growth grants without competition, the extent to which 
it did so raises questions about how Labor used this method of awarding 
grants. Competition facilitates accountability, promotes fairness and 
openness, and increases assurance that grantees have systems in place 
to meet grant goals. Yet Labor chose to award 83 percent of the High 
Growth grants, which represented almost 90 percent of the funds, 
without competition between fiscal years 2001 and 2007 (see table 2). 
Congress required that High Growth grants funded by H-1B fees be 
awarded competitively for fiscal years 2007 and 2008.[Footnote 17] 
Prior to that time, there were no provisions requiring Labor to award 
High Growth grants competitively. 

Table 2: The Number of High Growth Grants and Funds Awarded 
Competitively and Noncompetitively between Fiscal Years 2001 and 2007 
(Dollars in millions): 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Number of noncompetitive grants: 1; 
Funds awarded noncompetitively: $2.8; 
Number of competitive grants: 0; 
Funds awarded competitively: 0; 
Summary of grants and funds awarded noncompetitively: 100% of grants 
and funds. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Number of noncompetitive grants: 7; 
Funds awarded noncompetitively: $14.7; 
Number of competitive grants: 0; 
Funds awarded competitively: 0; 
Summary of grants and funds awarded noncompetitively: 100% of grants 
and funds. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Number of noncompetitive grants: 15; 
Funds awarded noncompetitively: $30.3; 
Number of competitive grants: 0; 
Funds awarded competitively: 0; 
Summary of grants and funds awarded noncompetitively: 100% of grants 
and funds. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Number of noncompetitive grants: 37; 
Funds awarded noncompetitively: $77.4; 
Number of competitive grants: 0; 
Funds awarded competitively: 0; 
Summary of grants and funds awarded noncompetitively: 100% of grants 
and funds. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Number of noncompetitive grants: 55; 
Funds awarded noncompetitively: $86.7; 
Number of competitive grants: 12; 
Funds awarded competitively: $12; 
Summary of grants and funds awarded noncompetitively: 82% of grants and 
88% of funds. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Number of noncompetitive grants: 21; 
Funds awarded noncompetitively: $50.5; 
Number of competitive grants: 0; 
Funds awarded competitively: 0; 
Summary of grants and funds awarded noncompetitively: 100% of grants 
and funds. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Number of noncompetitive grants: 1; 
Funds awarded noncompetitively: $1.4; 
Number of competitive grants: 17; 
Funds awarded competitively: $19.8; 
Summary of grants and funds awarded noncompetitively: 6% of grants and 
7% of funds. 

Fiscal year: Total; 
Number of noncompetitive grants: 137; 
Funds awarded noncompetitively: $263.8[A]; 
Number of competitive grants: 29; 
Funds awarded competitively: $31.8[A]; 
Summary of grants and funds awarded noncompetitively: 83% of grants and 
89% of funds. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data. 

Notes: The fiscal year was calculated based on the start date of the 
grant. Labor awards grants by program year rather than fiscal year, 
which is from July 1 through June 30 of each year. 

[A] Total dollar amount varies from Labor's reported figure due to 
rounding. 

[End of table] 

Labor said that it used a noncompetitive process to promote innovation. 
They also said that they awarded grants without competition to save the 
time it would have taken to solicit grants through competition. In 
hindsight, they said they could have offered the High Growth grants 
competitively earlier because they recognized that the number of 
noncompetitive awards created a perception that the process was unfair. 
They said, however, that they always intended to award later grants 
competitively. 

In contrast to the High Growth grants, the Community Based and WIRED 
initiatives have always been awarded through competition. These funding 
opportunities were announced to potential applicants through a 
solicitation for grant application that listed the information that an 
application must include to compete for funding. These applications 
were then reviewed and scored by a knowledgeable technical panel. These 
solicitations were also reviewed by Labor attorneys for compliance with 
procurement and statutory program requirements for awarding grants, 
according to officials. 

Labor Did Not Document the Criteria for Selecting Noncompetitive High 
Growth Grants or Whether They Met Labor's Internal Requirements or 
Requirements of the Law: 

Because the initial High Growth process was noncompetitive, documenting 
the decision steps was all the more important to ensure transparency. 
However, Labor was unable to provide documentation of the initial 
criteria for selecting grantees. As a result, it did not meet federal 
internal control standards, which state that all transactions and other 
significant events need to be clearly documented and that the 
documentation should be readily available for examination.[Footnote 18] 
In addition, it was unable to document that it met the statutory 
requirements for the laws authorizing the grants. Lastly, according to 
Labor's inspector general, it did not adequately document that it had 
followed its own procedures for awarding grants without competition. 

Labor did not document the criteria used to select the early 
noncompetitive High Growth projects. Labor officials told us there were 
no official published guidelines specific to High Growth grants, only 
draft guidelines, which were no longer available. In addition, Labor 
officials told us that generally they were looking for grantees that 
pursued partnerships and leveraged resources, but that attributes they 
sought changed over time. Labor published general requirements for 
noncompetitive grants in 2005 and updated them in 2007. Officials said 
these were not requirements, only guidelines for the kinds of 
information Labor would find valuable in evaluating proposals. 

In addition, while Labor said noncompetitive grants could be awarded 
without competition under the WIA provision authorizing demonstrations 
and pilot projects[Footnote 19] and under ACWIA, they could not 
document that the grants fully complied with the requirements of these 
provisions. For example, WIA requirements include providing direct 
services to individuals, including an evaluative component, and being 
awarded to private entities with recognized expertise or to state and 
local entities with expertise in operating or overseeing workforce 
investment programs.[Footnote 20] Officials said that they were certain 
they had ensured that the projects met all statutory requirements, but 
acknowledged they did not document that the requirements were met. 

Labor's inspector general found the agency did not always document that 
it followed its own procedures or always obtained required review and 
approval before awarding grants noncompetitively. Labor officials said 
most of the noncompetitive grant proposals were presented to Labor's 
Procurement Review Board[Footnote 21] for review and approval allowed 
under exceptions for proposals that were unique or innovative, highly 
cost-effective, or available from only one source.[Footnote 22] 
However, in 2007, Labor's inspector general reviewed a sample of the 
noncompetitive High Growth grants awarded between July 2001 and March 
2007 and found that 6 of the 26 grants, which should have undergone 
review, were awarded without prior approval from the review board. 
Furthermore, they found that Labor could not demonstrate that proper 
procedures were followed in awarding the High Growth grants without 
competition.[Footnote 23] 

Although they were unable to provide documentation, Labor officials 
said they used considerable rigor in selecting grant recipients under 
the noncompetitive process. Similar to a competitive process, the 
noncompetitive grant proposals were highly scrutinized and reviewed to 
ensure they made best use of scarce resources. They said that in most 
cases, staff created abstracts to highlight strengths and weaknesses 
and multiple staff and managers participated in reviews and decision- 
making. In addition, Labor officials strongly disagreed with the 
majority of the inspector general's findings. They said they followed 
established procurement practices as required but agreed that 
additional documentation would be valuable. 

In response to the inspector general's report, Labor has taken steps to 
strengthen the noncompetitive process. These include developing 
procedures to review noncompetitive grant proposals for criteria 
including support of at least one of ETA's strategic goals and 
investment priorities. The procedures also require ETA to document that 
required procedures are followed and that required review and approval 
is obtained before awarding grants noncompetitively. However, the newly 
developed procedures do not explicitly identify the statutory program 
requirements for which compliance should be documented. 

Labor's Process for Identifying Industry Workforce Challenges Did Not 
Include the Majority of Workforce Investment Boards: 

The vast majority of workforce boards--which oversee the workforce 
investment system--were not included in the meetings that served as 
incubators for grant proposals. After identifying 13 high-growth/high- 
demand sectors,[Footnote 24] Labor held a series of meetings between 
2002 and 2005 with industry executives and other stakeholders to 
identify workforce challenges and to develop solutions to them. 
[Footnote 25] According to Labor, they first held meetings with 
industry executives--executive forums--for 13 sectors to hear directly 
from industry leaders about the growth potential for their industries 
and to understand the workforce challenges they faced. Second, they 
hosted a series of workforce solutions forums for 11 of the sectors, 
which brought together industry executives (often those engaged in 
human resources and training activities) with representatives from 
education, state and local workforce boards, or other workforce-related 
agencies.[Footnote 26] However, a review of Labor's rosters for the 
solutions forums shows that while there were more than 800 
participants, 26 of the almost 650 local workforce boards nationwide 
were represented, and these came from 15 states. (See fig. 1.) 

Figure 1: Number of Workforce Investment Boards and States with 
Participants at Solutions Forums: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a map of the United States depicting the following 
information: 

Number of workforce investment board representatives: 3; 
States: California; Florida; Kentucky; Texas. 

Number of workforce investment board representatives: 2; 
States: Illinois; Virginia; Washington. 

Number of workforce investment board representatives: 1; 
States: Connecticut; Delaware; Idaho; Massachusetts; Maine; New York; 
Pennsylvania; Tennessee. 

Number of workforce investment board representatives: 0; 
States: All other states. 

[End of figure] 

Further only 20 of the 50 states had their state workforce investment 
board or other agency represented (see table 3).[Footnote 27] 

Table 3: Industry Sector Solutions Forums and the Number of 
Participants: 

Industry sector solutions forum: Advanced manufacturing; 
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 61; 
Local workforce investment board participation: 3; 
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation: 
0. 

Industry sector solutions forum: Aerospace; 
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 40; 
Local workforce investment board participation: 1; 
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation: 
0. 

Industry sector solutions forum: Automotive; 
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 216; 
Local workforce investment board participation: 6; 
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation: 
9. 

Industry sector solutions forum: Biotechnology; 
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 29; 
Local workforce investment board participation: 4; 
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation: 
6. 

Industry sector solutions forum: Construction; 
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 86; 
Local workforce investment board participation: 5; 
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation: 
2. 

Industry sector solutions forum: Energy; 
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 26; 
Local workforce investment board participation: 0; 
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation: 
1. 

Industry sector solutions forum: Financial services; 
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 99; 
Local workforce investment board participation: 3; 
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation: 
4. 

Industry sector solutions forum: Geospatial technology; 
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 41; 
Local workforce investment board participation: 1; 
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation: 
2. 

Industry sector solutions forum: Health; 
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 155; 
Local workforce investment board participation: 6; 
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation: 
10. 

Industry sector solutions forum: Hospitality; 
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 57; 
Local workforce investment board participation: 3; 
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation: 
3. 

Industry sector solutions forum: Transportation; 
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 19; 
Local workforce investment board participation: 2; 
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation: 
2. 

Industry sector solutions forum: Total; 
Total number of participants at each solutions forum: 829; 
Local workforce investment board participation: 34[A]; 
State workforce investment board or other state agency participation: 
39[B]. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor data on solutions 
forums participants. 

[A] The numbers for local workforce investment board participation does 
not total 26 because 2 workforce investment boards participated in more 
than one solutions forums; the remaining 24 participated in only one. 
Also some local workforce investment boards had more than one 
representative. 

[B] The numbers for state workforce investment board or other state 
agency participation does not total 20 because several states attended 
more than one forum and some states had more than one agency 
represented. 

[End of table] 

Labor officials said they went to great lengths to include workforce 
system participants in solutions forums. Officials said they asked 
state workforce agencies to identify a state coordinator to interface 
with Labor, work collaboratively with industry partners, and identify 
potential attendees for executive and solutions forums. Further, the 
state coordinators were to help Labor communicate with the workforce 
system about High Growth activities and were kept updated through 
routine conference calls and periodic in-person meetings, according to 
Labor. Labor officials also said the Assistant Secretary and other 
senior officials traveled frequently, speaking to workforce system 
partners at conferences to gather information about innovative 
practices. Labor officials said, even with these efforts, they found 
only a few workforce boards operating unique or innovative demand- 
driven programs. 

However, most workforce board officials we spoke to in our site visits 
reported becoming aware of the meetings and the grant opportunities 
after the fact, even though they were pursuing the kinds of innovative 
practices the meeting was supposed to promote. Some state board 
officials said that they were often unaware that grants had been 
awarded, and at least one local workforce board said it became aware of 
a grant only when the community college grantee approached it for 
assistance in getting enough students for their program. In addition, 
officials in states we visited said they had been developing and using 
the types of practices that Labor was seeking to promote at the 
meetings. 

Being present at the meetings could have been beneficial to workforce 
boards. Labor officials acknowledged that when meeting participants 
suggested a solution to an employment challenge that they deemed 
innovative and had merit, they encouraged them to submit a proposal for 
a grant to model the solution. In addition, officials said that in some 
cases, they provided applicants additional assistance to increase the 
chances that the proposal would be funded. 

Labor Uses a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach for High Growth and 
Community Based Grants but Not for WIRED Grants: 

For all three grant initiatives, Labor has a process to resolve 
findings found in single audits, collects quarterly performance 
information, and provides technical assistance as a part of monitoring. 
In addition, it has a risk-based monitoring approach for High Growth 
and Community Based grants, but has not implemented such an approach 
for WIRED grants.[Footnote 28] However, Labor officials told us that 
they are developing a risk-based approach for monitoring WIRED grants 
that they plan to implement in the spring of 2008. According to Labor's 
grants monitoring guide, improving grant administration is crucial to 
Labor's management improvement plans and risk-based on-site monitoring 
of grantees is an important part of this effort. 

Labor Has a Process to Ensure Grantees Resolve Findings in Single 
Audits, Collects Quarterly Performance Information, and Provides 
Technical Assistance: 

Labor said it has a process to work with grantees, including High 
Growth, Community Based, and WIRED to resolve findings in single 
audits. However, Labor's inspector general reported that Labor does not 
have procedures in place for grant officers to follow up with grantees 
with past due audit reports to ensure timely submission and thus proper 
oversight and correction of audit findings. The inspector general 
recommended that Labor implement such procedures and Labor has done so, 
but the finding remains open because Labor's inspector general has not 
yet determined if the procedures adequately address the recommendation. 
[Footnote 29] 

As part of its monitoring, Labor requires High Growth, Community Based, 
and WIRED grantees to submit quarterly financial and performance 
reports. Financial reports contain information, such as total amount of 
grant funds spent and amount of matching funds provided by the grantee. 
Performance reports focus on activities leading to performance goals, 
such as grantee accomplishments and challenges to meeting grant goals. 
Labor officials said they review these reports and follow up with 
grantees if there are questions. Labor officials acknowledge, however, 
that they are still working to ensure the consistency of performance 
reports provided by High Growth and Community Based grantees and are 
working with OMB to establish consistent reporting requirements. In 
addition, while the finding was not specific to these three grants, 
Labor's inspector general cited high error rates in grantee performance 
data as a management challenge.[Footnote 30] Labor is taking steps to 
improve grant accountability, such as providing grantee and grant 
officer training. 

All grantees receive technical assistance from Labor on how to comply 
with laws and regulations, program guidance, and grant conditions. For 
example, Labor issued guides for High Growth and Community Based 
grantees which include information on allowable costs and reporting 
requirements. In addition, Labor officials said they trained national 
and regional office staff to address grantees' questions and help High 
Growth and Community Based grantees obtain assistance from experts at 
Labor and other grantees. Labor officials said they hold national and 
regional High Growth and Community Based grantee orientation sessions 
for new grantees, present technical assistance webinars and training 
sessions focused on specific high-growth industries, assist grantees 
with disseminating grant results and products, such as curricula, and 
set up virtual networking groups of High Growth grantees to encourage 
collaboration. 

Labor officials told us they have teams who provide technical 
assistance to each WIRED grantee including weekly contact. During these 
sessions, Labor staff work with WIRED grantees on grant management 
issues, such as costs that are allowed using grant funds. Labor staff 
provide additional assistance through conference calls, site visits, 
and documentation reviews. In addition, Labor officials said they have 
held five webinars on allowable costs and provided grantees with a 
paper on allowable costs in July 2006, which was updated in July 2007. 
Finally, Labor officials explained that they made annual site visits 
for the first 13 WIRED grantees in spring and summer of 2007 to discuss 
implementation plans and progress toward plan goals. In addition, Labor 
staff said they have reviewed the implementation of the remaining WIRED 
grants to ensure that planned activities comply with requirements of 
the law. However, none of these reviews resulted in written reports 
with findings and corrective action plans. 

Labor has spent $16 million on contracts to provide technical 
assistance, improve grant management, administration, and monitoring, 
and to assist Labor with tasks such as holding grantee training 
conferences. The larger of these contracts focus on providing technical 
assistance to WIRED grantees. For example, one contract valued at over 
$2 million provides WIRED grantees assistance with assessing regional 
strength and weaknesses and developing regional economic strategies and 
implementation plans. Another grant, valued at almost $4 million, 
provides a database and geographic information system[Footnote 31] that 
WIRED grantees can use to facilitate data analysis and reporting, among 
other things. For a list of these contracts, see appendix III. 

While these monitoring and technical assistance efforts are useful to 
help grantees manage their grants, they do not provide a risk-based 
monitoring process to identify and resolve problems, such as compliance 
issues, in a consistent and timely manner. 

Labor Provides Risk-Based Monitoring for High Growth and Community 
Based Grants: 

Labor uses a risk-based strategy to monitor grants under two of the 
three grant initiatives: High Growth and Community Based. For these 
initiatives it selects grantees to monitor based on indications of 
problems that may affect grant performance. Labor's risk-based approach 
to monitoring most grants reflects suggested grant practices. Suggested 
grant practices recognize that it is important to identify, prioritize, 
and manage potential at-risk grant recipients for monitoring given the 
large number of grants awarded by federal agencies. Through this 
process, Labor staff determine if grantee administration and program 
delivery systems operate, the grantee is in compliance with program 
requirements, and information reported is accurate. 

Labor's risk-based monitoring strategy involves conducting site visits 
based on grantees' assessed risk-levels and availability of resources, 
among other things.[Footnote 32] These site visits include written 
assessments of grantee's management and performance and compliance 
findings and requirements for corrective action. For example, Labor's 
site visit guide includes questions about financial and performance 
data reporting systems, such as how well the grantee maintains files on 
program participants.[Footnote 33] 

Labor has monitored about half of the High Growth grants and over one- 
quarter of the Community Based grants. Labor officials said these 
monitoring efforts have resulted in a number of significant findings 
which have generally been resolved in a timely manner. (See table 4.) 
For example, during a November 2006 site visit of a Community Based 
grantee Labor identified three findings: incomplete participant files, 
failure to follow internal procurement procedures, and missing grant 
partnership agreements. Similarly, during a site visit in spring 2006 
to a High Growth grantee, Labor found that the grantee did not 
accurately track participant information and reported incorrect 
information on expenditures, among other things. As of September 2007 
Labor said these findings had been resolved (see table 4). 

Table 4: Status of Risk-Based Monitored Grants as of September 30, 
2007: 

Status: Findings resolved; 
High Growth: 38; 
Community Based: 13. 

Status: Findings not yet resolved; 
High Growth: 10; 
Community Based: 5. 

Status: No findings; 
High Growth: 31; 
Community Based: 21. 

Status: Total monitored; 
High Growth: 79; 
Community Based: 39. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants monitoring 
data. 

[End of table] 

As another part of Labor's risk-based monitoring strategy, Labor's 
internal requirements specify that Labor staff are to make site visits 
to all new grantees, including High Growth, Community Based, and WIRED, 
within 12 months of beginning grant activity and to new grantees rated 
as "at risk" within 3 months. Labor officials said they consider "new 
grantee" site visits to be orientation visits and had not made visits 
to most new grantees. They said they broadly interpret this requirement 
to include a variety of methods of contact and generally use 
teleconference and video conference training sessions rather than site 
visits, based on the availability of resources. For example, Labor 
calls each new Community Based grantee to schedule new grantee 
training. Labor is taking steps to update its internal requirements to 
better reflect the purpose of the new grantee monitoring. 

Labor Is Planning to Develop a Risk-Based Approach for Monitoring WIRED 
Grants, but It Has Not Yet Done So: 

Labor officials said they are developing a WIRED grant assessment tool, 
but it is not finalized. They plan to implement it in spring 2008; 
however, the department has not developed a schedule for its use. Labor 
officials explained that a specific tool is needed for monitoring WIRED 
grants because the site visit guide used for most other Labor grants 
would not be appropriate for WIRED grants. One reason is that WIRED 
grants are awarded to states but are generally administered by other 
entities. For example, Labor awarded a $15 million WIRED grant to the 
state of Colorado, but programs funded by the grant are primarily 
administered by the not-for-profit Metro Denver Economic Development 
Corporation. 

Conclusions: 

Seven years after awarding the first grants, Labor is in the process of 
evaluating the High Growth and WIRED initiatives and has plans to 
evaluate the Community Based initiative but will be challenged to 
evaluate the effect of the almost $900 million spent on the grant 
initiatives. Because of poor planning, the agency will not be able to 
perform the kind of comprehensive impact evaluation that would have 
been possible if it had been collecting data consistent with that 
collected for other WIA programs all along. Because Labor lacks such 
data it will be challenged in drawing strong conclusions from its 
planned evaluations. Until Labor collects consistent outcome data, such 
as the common measures, that would allow comparison of impact of each 
of the three grant initiatives to those of other Labor programs, Labor 
cannot know the extent to which the initiatives improve employment 
outcomes, if at all. 

The vast majority of High Growth grants--more than $263 million--were 
awarded noncompetitively using inconsistent selection criteria under a 
process that was not adequately documented. As a result there is little 
assurance that the grants selected were the best possible projects. 
Although Labor currently awards grants under all three grant 
initiatives competitively, the fact that Labor used inconsistent 
selection criteria that changed over time and did not adequately 
document the process when awarding High Growth grants noncompetitively 
raises questions about how Labor uses this method of awarding grants. 
This is a critical concern given that Labor could again award millions 
of dollars of noncompetitive grants. While it has taken steps to 
strengthen the noncompetitive process, the newly developed procedures 
do not explicitly identify the statutory program requirements for which 
compliance should be documented. Finally, the absence of a risk-based 
monitoring approach for WIRED puts Labor at risk of not knowing if the 
millions of dollars awarded to WIRED grantees have been used for the 
purposes they are intended. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To determine the impact of the three grant initiatives, ensure that the 
best possible projects are selected, and improve accountability of 
grant funds, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor take the 
following three actions: 

* Take steps to ensure that the department can evaluate the impact of 
the initiatives so that it can draw strong conclusions based on its 
evaluations, such as following through with plans to collect consistent 
data, integrating the initiatives into its overall research agenda with 
relevant performance goals and indicators, and including these 
initiatives in its assessment of the impact of WIA services. 

* Direct the Employment and Training Administration to identify the 
statutory program requirements for which compliance must be documented 
when awarding noncompetitive grants. 

* Develop and implement a risk-based monitoring approach for WIRED and 
a schedule for its use. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of the report to Labor for review and comment. In 
response to our first recommendation, Labor said it has taken initial 
steps to evaluate the impact of the initiatives and disagreed with our 
assertion that the initiatives are not integrated into its strategic 
plan. We agree that the agency has taken initial steps, but these do 
not ensure that they will be able to assess the initiatives' impact. We 
do not dispute that the strategic plan mentions the initiatives; 
however, we found that both the strategic and research plans do not tie 
the High Growth or WIRED initiatives to performance goals, making it 
unclear what criteria Labor will use to evaluate their effectiveness. 
In response to the first recommendation, Labor also disputed a claim 
that we did not make, namely that the initiatives belong in the 
assessment of WIA services. 

In response to our second recommendation, Labor said it recently 
developed procedures to document noncompetitive grant proposals' 
compliance with statutory requirements. In its comments and in its 
corrective action plan to address Labor's inspector general's findings, 
Labor noted that its new procedures for reviewing noncompetitive grant 
proposals included determining if they met these requirements and 
requires documenting this. Labor's inspector general is in the process 
of reviewing these corrective actions to determine their adequacy. Our 
review of the documents supporting these new procedures found no 
specific reference to statutory program requirements against which 
proposals would be checked for compliance. We revised our draft 
recommendation to clarify that we are asking Labor to identify the 
statutory program requirements for which compliance should be 
documented. 

In response to our third recommendation, Labor said it plans to 
implement a risk-based monitoring approach for the WIRED initiative. 
Given that Labor has not yet done so, we stand by our recommendation 
that they follow through with this effort. 

In its comments, Labor disagreed with several of our findings and 
stated that: 

* the initiatives were not considered research projects and were not 
designed to compare participant outcomes with the participant outcomes 
achieved under the WIA formula program; 

* workforce boards face no challenges that cannot be overcome in 
pursuing demand driven practices that are encouraged under the three 
initiatives; 

* it is not improper to modify criteria for selecting grantees when the 
agency assessment of workforce needs changes; and: 

* there are no specific rules for documenting the decision-making 
process for noncompetitive grants, but agreed that additional 
documentation would be valuable and indicated that it has taken steps 
to require such documentation: 

While we recognize that the grants awarded under these initiatives were 
not research projects per se, many were funded as pilots and 
demonstrations and by statute were required to have an evaluative 
component. Although Labor says that it did not intend to compare the 
initiative participants' outcomes with those of participants in WIA 
formula programs, its own documents suggest that these types of 
comparisons are warranted. We stand by our findings that workforce 
boards face challenges implementing demand-driven approaches. Labor 
acknowledged their efforts to provide workforce boards with assistance 
in this area. Regarding selection of noncompetitive, High Growth 
grantees, the fact remains that Labor could not provide specific 
criteria used for selecting these grantees and told us that these 
criteria changed over time. Although Labor's statement that no rules 
exist for documenting decision making runs counter to federal 
principles for internal controls, it indicated that it is taking steps 
to address this issue. 

Labor officials also provided technical comments that we incorporated 
into the report where appropriate. Labor's written comments are 
reproduced in appendix IV. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, 
relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. We 
also will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, 
the report will be made available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or [email protected]. Contact points for our 
Office 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. 

Signed by: 

George A. Scott: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to examine (1) the intent of the grant initiatives 
and the extent to which Labor will be able to assess their effects; (2) 
the extent to which the process used competition, was adequately 
documented, and included key players; and (3) what Labor is doing to 
monitor individual grantee compliance with grant requirements. 

To determine the intent of the grant initiatives and the extent to 
which Labor was able to assess their effects, we reviewed documents, 
including grant proposals and quarterly reports, Labor's strategic plan 
to identify plans for research, and a study on the implementation and 
sustainability of the early High Growth grants.[Footnote 34] We 
reviewed available solicitations for grant applications to understand 
the purpose and goals of the grants and to identify the kinds of 
outcome data that Labor expected from grantees--three for competitive 
High Growth grants, three Community Based grants, and two WIRED grants. 
In addition, we interviewed the appropriate Labor officials and also 
public workforce experts from the Upjohn Institute, the Council on 
Competitiveness, the National Governors Association, the National 
Network of Sector Partners, the Urban Institute, the National 
Association of State Workforce Agencies, and the National Association 
of Workforce Boards to obtain their views on the grant initiatives and 
workforce system activities. We also obtained a list of all High 
Growth, Community Based, and WIRED grants awarded between fiscal year 
2001 and 2007 to determine the amounts, the source of funding, and the 
timing of the awards. We assessed the reliability of the individual 
grant data Labor provided by (1) reviewing the data for obvious errors 
and completeness, (2) reviewing related documentation, and (3) 
interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We 
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 
this report. In addition, we reviewed the Workforce Investment Act 
(WIA) and the American Competitiveness Act (ACWIA), the two primary 
laws under which the funding for these grants was authorized. 

We also conducted site visits. Out of a universe of about 340 grantees 
provided by Labor at the time of our review, we selected eight for more 
in-depth study, conducted semi-structured interviews of grantees and 
state and local workforce officials, and reviewed grantees' proposals 
and recent quarterly reports. We visited six grantees in five states-- 
Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, New York, and Washington and 
contacted two additional grantees by telephone in Illinois and 
Pennsylvania. Four criteria were used to select these grantees: (1) 
grant type--we selected an industry/business representative, a 
community college, and a representative of the public workforce system 
for High Growth grantees; three community colleges for the Community 
Based grantees; and two regional grantees for WIRED; (2) geographic 
location--the sites represented different regions of the country; (3) 
time period--for the High Growth grantees, we selected two that 
received a grant through the noncompetitive process and had been 
operating 3 or more years and one grantee that competed for its award 
and was 2 years old; all of the Community Based were 2-year-old grants; 
and the WIRED grantees represented the first generation, which were 
only 1 year old; and (4) award amount--we selected grantees with awards 
that exceeded $1 million. 

In examining the extent to which the process used competition, was 
adequately documented, and included key players, we reviewed documents 
regarding the processes used to award both competitive and 
noncompetitive grants, and interviewed officials. We also analyzed data 
on the timing, numbers, and amounts of the High Growth grants and 
whether they were awarded competitively and noncompetitively. To 
understand Labor's internal procedures and requirements for awarding 
grants, we reviewed the Department of Labor's Manual Series guidance 
for awarding noncompetitive grants, its guidelines for submitting a 
noncompetitive grant proposal, and several solicitations for grant 
applications, which are used to announce competitive grant proposals. 
In addition, we reviewed recommendations from the Domestic Working 
Group Grant Accountability Project's report on awarding federal grants 
and the Standards for Internal Control. We also reviewed the Federal 
Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act to determine the legal requirements 
for awarding noncompetitive grants. Finally, we reviewed Labor's 
inspector general's report on High Growth grants for findings 
concerning the procedures for awarding these grants noncompetitively. 
Labor also provided rosters of invitees and participants to its 
executive and solutions forums, which we analyzed to determine the 
numbers of state and local workforce participants at each of the 
forums. 

To address what Labor is doing to monitor the performance of grantees, 
we interviewed Labor officials regarding the monitoring process and 
reviewed a list of High Growth and Community Based grants that had been 
monitored. We reviewed examples of six grantee monitoring reports and 
the single audit report of one grantee we contacted. We also reviewed 
Labor's monitoring procedures, but we did not assess their 
effectiveness. In addition, we reviewed Labor's inspector general's 
reports on grantee performance data and on the single audit process. We 
conducted our work from May 2007 to May 2008 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II High Growth, Community Based, and WIRED Grantees through 
September 30, 2007, by Initiative and State: 

Table 5: High Growth Grantees: 

Recipient name: State of Alaska, Department of Labor and Workforce 
Development; 
Total award amount: $7,000,000; 
Grantee state: AK; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Energy; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: University of Alaska; 
Total award amount: $499,988; 
Grantee state: AK; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Alabama Department of Economic And Community Affairs; 
Total award amount: $3,548,115; 
Grantee state: AL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Aerospace Development Center; 
Total award amount: $1,898,820; 
Grantee state: AL; 
Other states where activities take place: CA, FL, TX, CO, CT, IL, NY, 
OH, VA, WA, WI; 
Sector: Aerospace; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Alabama Department of Economic & Community Affairs; 
Total award amount: $3,000,000; 
Grantee state: AL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: State of Arkansas - Department of Workforce Services; 
Total award amount: $5,935,402; 
Grantee state: AR; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced Manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Arkansas Department of Workforce Services; 
Total award amount: $1,350,665; 
Grantee state: AR; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Transportation; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Jobpath, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $276,393; 
Grantee state: AZ; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Biotechnology; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: State of Arizona Department of Commerce; 
Total award amount: $3,403,168; 
Grantee state: AZ; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Information Technology; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: League for Innovation in the Community College; 
Total award amount: $500,000; 
Grantee state: AZ; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Alameda County Workforce Investment Board; 
Total award amount: $2,000,000; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Biotechnology; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: San Bernardino Community College District; 
Total award amount: $1,618,334; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: San Diego Workforce Partnership, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $2,510,117; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Biotechnology; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Rancho Santiago Community College District; 
Total award amount: $187,939; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: MO; 
Sector: Geospatial; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: County of Orange/OC Workforce Investment Board; 
Total award amount: $1,000,000; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Biotechnology; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: City of Los Angeles/Community Development Department; 
Total award amount: $1,196,000; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Los Angeles Valley College; 
Total award amount: $1,500,000; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: International Association of Nanotechnology; 
Total award amount: $1,500,000; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Colorado Department of Labor & Employment; 
Total award amount: $1,024,580; 
Grantee state: CO; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Colorado Department of Labor & Employment; 
Total award amount: $1,600,000; 
Grantee state: CO; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Pueblo Community College; 
Total award amount: $658,519; [Empty]; 
Grantee state: CO; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Geospatial Information & Technology Association; 
Total award amount: $695,362; 
Grantee state: CO; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Geospatial; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: The Workplace, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $2,000,000; 
Grantee state: CT; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: The State of Connecticut, Department of Economic & 
Community Development; 
Total award amount: $2,748,405; 
Grantee state: CT; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Financial services; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: CBIA Education Foundation; 
Total award amount: $1,775,030; 
Grantee state: CT; 
Other states where activities take place: MA; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Capital Workforce Partners; 
Total award amount: $506,836; 
Grantee state: CT; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: National Alliance of Business; 
Total award amount: $813,000; 
Grantee state: DC; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; 
Total award amount: $136,000; 
Grantee state: DC; 
Other states where activities take place: CA, FL; 
Sector: Automotive; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Home Builders Institute; 
Total award amount: $4,268,454; 
Grantee state: DC; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Construction; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: National Foundation for the Advancement of Elder and 
Disabled Care in America; 
Total award amount: $104,929; 
Grantee state: DC; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: National Retail Federation Foundation; 
Total award amount: 99,900; 
Grantee state: DC; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Retail; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: National Retail Federation Foundation; 
Total award amount: $5,065,000; 
Grantee state: DC; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Retail; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Center for Energy Workforce Development; 
Total award amount: $98,270; 
Grantee state: DC; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Energy; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Arch Training Center, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $269,193; 
Grantee state: DC; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Financial services; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: The Association of Career Management Firms 
International; 
Total award amount: $60,000; 
Grantee state: DC; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise; 
Total award amount: $99,635; 
Grantee state: DC; 
Other states where activities take place: AL; 
Sector: Information technology; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Council on Competitiveness; 
Total award amount: $99,999; 
Grantee state: DC; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole Source. 

Recipient name: Association of Career Firms North America; 
Total award amount: $99,000; 
Grantee state: DC; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole Source. 

Recipient name: National Association of Workforce Boards; 
Total award amount: $200,000; 
Grantee state: DC; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole Source. 

Recipient name: Delaware Workforce Investment Board; 
Total award amount: $200,697; 
Grantee state: DE; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Biotechnology; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Brevard Community College; 
Total award amount: $88,252; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Aerospace; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Florida Space Research Institute, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $355,628; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Aerospace; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Workforce Alliance, Incorporated; 
Total award amount: $2,325,303; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Biotechnology; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Agency for Workforce Innovation; 
Total award amount: $1,261,997; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Florida International University Board of Trustees, 
Office of Sponsored Research Administration; 
Total award amount: $1,419,266; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Miami Dade College; 
Total award amount: $1,000,000; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Biotechnology; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation; 
Total award amount: $793,000; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Financial services; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Georgia Department of Labor; 
Total award amount: $724,659; 
Grantee state: GA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: UPS; 
Total award amount: $1,789,970; 
Grantee state: GA; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Transportation; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: University of Hawaii; 
Total award amount: $1,400,000; 
Grantee state: HI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty];
Sector: Construction; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Indian Hills Community College; 
Total award amount: $996,250; 
Grantee state: IA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Biotechnology; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Western Iowa Tech Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,498,548; 
Grantee state: IA; 
Other states where activities take place: NE, SD; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Iowa Workforce Development; 
Total award amount: $850,000; 
Grantee state: IA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Illinois Department of Employment Security; 
Total award amount: $5,086,538; 
Grantee state: IL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Council for Adult and Experimental Learning Center; 
Total award amount: $2,555,706; 
Grantee state: IL; 
Other states where activities take place: TX, MO, SD, WA; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Comptia; 
Total award amount: $2,818,795; 
Grantee state: IL; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Information technology; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Illinois State University; 
Total award amount: $5,774,420; 
Grantee state: IL; 
Other states where activities take place: OH; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Chicago Women in Trades; 
Total award amount: $2,092,343; 
Grantee state: IL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Construction; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: National Congress of Parents and Teachers; 
Total award amount: $480,000; 
Grantee state: IL; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Indianapolis Private Industry Council, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $1,000,000; 
Grantee state: IN; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Biotechnology; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana; 
Total award amount: $1,860,515; 
Grantee state: IN; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: The Manufacturing Institute; 
Total award amount: $498,520; 
Grantee state: KS; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Neosho County Community College; 
Total award amount: 495,600; 
Grantee state: KS; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Henderson-Henderson County Chamber of Commerce; 
Total award amount: $2,991,840; 
Grantee state: KY; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Catalyst Learning; 
Total award amount: $2,000,000; 
Grantee state: KY; 
Other states where activities take place: IN, MD, VA, OH, PA; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: West Kentucky Workforce Investment Board; 
Total award amount: $3,025,260; 
Grantee state: KY; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Energy; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: The Kentucky Community and Technical College System; 
Total award amount: $2,480,852; 
Grantee state: KY; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Automotive; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Louisiana, Department of Labor Employment and Training; 
Total award amount: $3,000,000; 
Grantee state: LA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Board of Supervisors of Community and Technical 
Colleges; 
Total award amount: $4,998,800; 
Grantee state: LA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Construction; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Jobs for the Future, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $927,068; 
Grantee state: MA; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Jobs for the Future, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $4,190,052; 
Grantee state: MA; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Youth Build USA; 
Total award amount: $18,202,600; 
Grantee state: MA; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Construction; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Massachusetts Biotechnology Education Foundation; 
Total award amount: $1,372,250; 
Grantee state: MA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Biotechnology; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation; 
Total award amount: $1,500,000; 
Grantee state: MD; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation; 
Total award amount: $1,000,000; 
Grantee state: MD; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation; 
Total award amount: $3,237,411; 
Grantee state: MD; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Community Transportation Development Center; 
Total award amount: $2,000,000; 
Grantee state: MD; 
Other states where activities take place: DC, GA, OH, OR, PA; 
Sector: Transportation; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Paul Hall Institute of Human Development, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $2,499,618; 
Grantee state: MD; 
Other states where activities take place: HI, AK, Gulf Coast; 
Sector: Transportation; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: 360vu Research and Education Foundation; 
Total award amount: $2,000,322; 
Grantee state: MD; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Maine Department of Economic And Community Development; 
Total award amount: $2,996,724; 
Grantee state: ME; 
Other states where activities take place: CT, MA, NH, RI, VT; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Automotive Youth Educational Systems, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $600,000; 
Grantee state: MI; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Automotive; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Automotive Youth Educational Systems, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $2,200,000; 
Grantee state: MI; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Automotive; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: CVS Regional Learning Center; 
Total award amount: $1,757,981; 
Grantee state: MI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Northwest Michigan Council of Governments; 
Total award amount: $500,000; 
Grantee state: MI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Downriver Community Conference Retraining; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: MI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Automotive; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: St. Louis City Workforce Investment Board; 
Total award amount: $1,499,998; 
Grantee state: MO; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Carpenters' Joint Apprenticeship Program; 
Total award amount: $2,187,107; 
Grantee state: MO; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Construction; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: University of Missouri - Columbia; 
Total award amount: $2,305,995; 
Grantee state: MO; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Energy; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: University of Southern Mississippi-School of 
Engineering Tech; 
Total award amount: $1,565,227; 
Grantee state: MS; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Geospatial; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Mississippi Department of Employment Security; 
Total award amount: $3,000,000; 
Grantee state: MS; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Mississippi Department of Employment Security; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: MS; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Construction; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: MHA Health Research & Educational Foundation; 
Total award amount: $500,000; 
Grantee state: MS; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Forsyth Tech Community College; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: NC; 
Other states where activities take place: NH, IA, WA, CA; 
Sector: Biotechnology; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Forsyth Tech Community College; 
Total award amount: $754,146; 
Grantee state: NC; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Biotechnology; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: North Carolina Department of Commerce; 
Total award amount: $1,500,000; 
Grantee state: NC; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Central Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,639,403; 
Grantee state: NE; 
Other states where activities take place: SD, WY, IO, CO, KS; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: San Juan College; 
Total award amount: $2,113,127; 
Grantee state: NM; 
Other states where activities take place: UT, AZ, CO, WY; 
Sector: Energy; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Southern Nevada Workforce Investment Board; 
Total award amount: $1,121,166; 
Grantee state: NV; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Hospitality; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Girl Scouts of the USA; 
Total award amount: $200,000; 
Grantee state: NY; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Automotive; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Excelsior College; 
Total award amount: $516,154; 
Grantee state: NY; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute; 
Total award amount: $999,902; 
Grantee state: NY; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Orange County Workforce Investment Board; 
Total award amount: $1,048,300; 
Grantee state: NY; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Research Foundation of CUNY; 
Total award amount: $494,386; 
Grantee state: NY; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Hospitality; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Rochester Institute of Technology; 
Total award amount: $1,158,983; 
Grantee state: NY; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Workforce Investment Board of Herkimer, Madison and 
Oneida Counties; 
Total award amount: $497,576; 
Grantee state: NY; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: 1199 SEIU League Grant Corporation; 
Total award amount: $192,500; 
Grantee state: NY; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Berger Health System; 
Total award amount: $200,000; 
Grantee state: OH; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Ohio Department of Job and Family Services; 
Total award amount: $4,296,624; 
Grantee state: OH; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Ohio Board of Regents; 
Total award amount: $1,178,425; 
Grantee state: OH; 
Other states where activities take place: FL, LA; 
Sector: Financial services; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Techsolve, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $1,464,670; 
Grantee state: OH; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Lake Land Community College; 
Total award amount: $333,485; 
Grantee state: OH; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Biotechnology; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Lorain County Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,599,979; 
Grantee state: OH; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: High Plains Technology Center; 
Total award amount: $1,495,487; 
Grantee state: OK; 
Other states where activities take place: KS, TX; 
Sector: Energy; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: State of Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology 
Education; 
Total award amount: $2,363,539; 
Grantee state: OK; 
Other states where activities take place: TX, KS, AK; 
Sector: Energy; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: State of Oklahoma; 
Total award amount: $1,500,000; 
Grantee state: OK; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Columbia Gorge Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,250,000; 
Grantee state: OR; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Oregon Manufacturing Extension Partnership; 
Total award amount: $3,199,709; 
Grantee state: OR; 
Other states where activities take place: WA, ID; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce 
Development; 
Total award amount: $300,000; 
Grantee state: OR; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: William F. Goodling Regional Advanced Skills Center; 
Total award amount: $990,125; 
Grantee state: PA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Geospatial; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Pennsylvania Automotive Association Foundation; 
Total award amount: $95,000; 
Grantee state: PA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Automotive; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Delaware Valley Industrial Resource Center; 
Total award amount: $3,000,000; 
Grantee state: PA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse; 
Total award amount: $2,433,159; 
Grantee state: PA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Biotechnology; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Lancaster County Workforce Investment Board; 
Total award amount: $1,354,585; 
Grantee state: PA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Pennsylvania Workforce Investment Board; 
Total award amount: $6,378,000; 
Grantee state: PA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: The Pennsylvania State University; 
Total award amount: $503,210; 
Grantee state: PA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Energy; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: International Association of Jewish Vocational 
Services; 
Total award amount: $1,000,000; 
Grantee state: PA; 
Other states where activities take place: CA, NJ; 
Sector: Financial services; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Philadelphia Workforce Investment Board; 
Total award amount: $1,500,000; 
Grantee state: PA; 
Other states where activities take place: NJ, DE; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Johnson & Wales University; 
Total award amount: $977,992; 
Grantee state: RI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Hospitality; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: American College of the Building Arts; 
Total award amount: $2,750,000; 
Grantee state: SC; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Construction; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Claflin University; 
Total award amount: $750,000; 
Grantee state: SC; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Biotechnology; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society; 
Total award amount: $1,877,517; 
Grantee state: SD; 
Other states where activities take place: ND, MN; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
ward method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Institute for GIS Studies; 
Total award amount: $2,000,000; 
Grantee state: TN; 
Other states where activities take place: NC, MS; 
Sector: Geospatial; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Hospital Corporation of America; 
Total award amount: $4,000,000; 
Grantee state: TN; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Texas Workforce Commission; 
Total award amount: $1,453,115; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Eastfield College; 
Total award amount: $837,424; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Automotive; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Houston-Galveston Area Council; 
Total award amount: $1,000,000; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Aerospace; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Lower Rio Grande Valley Workforce Development Board; 
Total award amount: $2,000,000; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Community Learning Center, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $1,168,400; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Aerospace; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Community Learning Center, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $2,779,408; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Aerospace; 
ward method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Valley Initiative for Development And Advancement; 
Total award amount: $4,000,000; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Capital Investing in the Development & Education of 
Adults, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $224,088; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Temple College; 
Total award amount: $920,495; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Biotechnology; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: United Regional Health Care System; 
Total award amount: $846,325; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Texas Workforce Commission; 
Total award amount: $3,000,000; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: North Central Texas Workforce Development Board; 
Total award amount: $1,562,382; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Management And Training Corporation; 
Total award amount: $1,499,686; 
Grantee state: UT; 
Other states where activities take place: PA, OH, IL; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: University of Utah; 
Total award amount: $871,707; 
Grantee state: UT; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: College of Eastern Utah; 
Total award amount: $2,737,804; 
Grantee state: UT; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Energy; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Kidz Online, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $1,000,000; 
Grantee state: VA; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Geospatial; Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: National Institute For Automotive Service Excellence; 
Total award amount: $300,000; 
Grantee state: VA; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Automotive; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Greater Peninsula Workforce Development Consortium; 
Total award amount: $1,965,000; 
Grantee state: VA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: The National Institute for Metalworking Skills, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $1,956,700; 
Grantee state: VA; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: The National Institute for Metalworking Skills, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $939,815; 
Grantee state: VA; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Skills USA VICA; 
Total award amount: $142,000; 
Grantee state: VA; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Non-sector specific; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Automotive Retailing Today; 
Total award amount: $150,000; 
Grantee state: VA; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Automotive; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Virginia Biotechnology Association; 
Total award amount: $1,494,369; 
Grantee state: VA; 
Other states where activities take place: MD; 
Sector: Advanced manufacturing; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Associated General Contractors; 
Total award amount: $235,500; 
Grantee state: VA; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Construction; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Vermont Department of Labor; 
Total award amount: $570,688; 
Grantee state: VT; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Information technology; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Shoreline Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,496,680; 
Grantee state: WA; 
Other states where activities take place: AK, ID, MT, OR, WA; 
Sector: Automotive; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Edmonds Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,475,045; 
Grantee state: WA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Aerospace; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Tacoma-Pierce County Employment & Training Consortium; 
Total award amount: $736,147; 
Grantee state: WA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: Gateway Technical College; 
Total award amount: $900,000; 
Grantee state: WI; 
Other states where activities take place: National; 
Sector: Automotive; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee; 
Total award amount: $1,365,101; 
Grantee state: WI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Competitive. 

Recipient name: Wisconsin Healthcare Workforce Network; 
Total award amount: $215,600; 
Grantee state: WI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Healthcare; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: West Virginia University Research Corporation on Behalf 
of West Virginia University; 
Total award amount: $3,000,000; 
Grantee state: WV; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Energy; 
Award method: Sole source. 

Recipient name: State of Wyoming; 
Total award amount: $2,400,000; 
Grantee state: WY; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]; 
Sector: Energy; Award method: Sole source. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data. 

[End of table] 

Table 6: Community Based Grantees: 

Recipient name: University of Alaska - Fairbanks Tanana Valley Campus; 
Total award amount: $1,994,819; 
Grantee state: AK; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Calhoun Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,465,656; 
Grantee state: AL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Enterprise-Ozark Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,636,688; 
Grantee state: AL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: George C. Wallace Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,921,841; 
Grantee state: AL; 
Other states where activities take place: FL, GA. 

Recipient name: George C. Wallace Community College at Hanceville; 
Total award amount: $1,600,606; 
Grantee state: AL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: H. Councill Trenholm State Technical College; 
Total award amount: $3,018,928; 
Grantee state: AL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Northwest-Shoals Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,656,636; 
Grantee state: AL; 
Other states where activities take place: TN, MS. 

Recipient name: Snead State Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,560,550; 
Grantee state: AL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Bevill State Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,909,973; 
Grantee state: AL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: H. Councill Trenholm State Technical College; 
Total award amount: $2,300,000; 
Grantee state: AL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Northwest Arkansas Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,895,564; 
Grantee state: AR; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Pulaski Technical College; 
Total award amount: $1,271,550; 
Grantee state: AR; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: UAM College of Technology - Mcgehee; 
Total award amount: $1,620,000; 
Grantee state: AR; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: South Arkansas Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,573,688; 
Grantee state: AR; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Rich Mountain Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,349,207; 
Grantee state: AR; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: University of Arkansas Community College at Batesville; 
Total award amount: $1,992,274; 
Grantee state: AR; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Arizona Western College; 
Total award amount: $1,996,654; 
Grantee state: AZ; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Central Arizona College; 
Total award amount: $1,985,204; 
Grantee state: AZ; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Yavapai College; 
Total award amount: $1,394,475; 
Grantee state: AZ; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Cypress Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,663,164; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Santa Monica College; 
Total award amount: $1,393,442; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Solano Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,260,000; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Board of Governors, California Community Colleges; 
Total award amount: $1,992,481; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: West Hills Community College District; 
Total award amount: $1,999,753; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: County of Merced; 
Total award amount: $1,850,443; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Contra Costa Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,484,918; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Aims Community College; 
Total award amount: $818,691; 
Grantee state: CO; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Otero Junior College; 
Total award amount: $998,453; 
Grantee state: CO; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Trinidad State Junior College; 
Total award amount: $1,496,673; 
Grantee state: CO; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Manchester Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,147,325; 
Grantee state: CT; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Manchester Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,174,000; 
Grantee state: CT; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Broward Community College; 
Total award amount: 1,603,627; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Edison College; 
Total award amount: $1,986,371; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Palm Beach Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,561,713; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Pensacola Junior College; 
Total award amount: $1,329,145; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Santa Fe Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,072,339; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: St. Petersburg College; 
Total award amount: $1,653,765; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Valencia Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,999,392; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Broward Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,998,621; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: St. Petersburg College; 
Total award amount: $1,246,869; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Florida Community College at Jacksonville; 
Total award amount: $1,999,835; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Polk Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,000,000; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Darton College; 
Total award amount: $2,484,456; 
Grantee state: GA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Georgia Perimeter College; 
Total award amount: $1,513,281; 
Grantee state: GA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Savannah Technical College; 
Total award amount: $1,298,411; 
Grantee state: GA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Atlanta Technical College; 
Total award amount: $2,102,900; 
Grantee state: GA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Athens Technical College; 
Total award amount: $1,996,326; 
Grantee state: GA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Northwest Iowa Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,740,322; 
Grantee state: IA; 
Other states where activities take place: MN, SD, NE. 

Recipient name: Eastern Iowa Community College District; 
Total award amount: $1,564,012; 
Grantee state: IA; 
Other states where activities take place: IL. 

Recipient name: College of Southern Idaho; 
Total award amount: $1,459,411; 
Grantee state: ID; 
Other states where activities take place: NV, OR, UT, NY. 

Recipient name: Idaho State University; 
Total award amount: $1,996,958; 
Grantee state: ID; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Lake Land College; 
Total award amount: $863,321; 
Grantee state: IL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: College of Dupage; 
Total award amount: $1,422,342; 
Grantee state: IL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Illinois Eastern Community Colleges, District #529; 
Total award amount: $859,214; 
Grantee state: IL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana; 
Total award amount: $2,572,436; 
Grantee state: IN; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: North Central Kansas Technical College; 
Total award amount: $1,600,000; 
Grantee state: KS; 
Other states where activities take place: MO. 

Recipient name: Dodge City Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,926,238; 
Grantee state: KS; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Madisonville Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,210,008; 
Grantee state: KY; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Owensboro Community and Technical College; 
Total award amount: $824,779; 
Grantee state: KY; 
Other states where activities take place: IN. 

Recipient name: Bluegrass Community and Technical College; 
Total award amount: $1,416,947; 
Grantee state: KY; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: L.E. Fletcher Technical Community College; 
Total award amount: $3,600,768; 
Grantee state: LA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Southern University at Shreveport; 
Total award amount: $1,992,240; 
Grantee state: LA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Middlesex Community College at Bedford; 
Total award amount: $853,736; 
Grantee state: MA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Middlesex Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,886,569; 
Grantee state: MA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Hagerstown Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,649,348; 
Grantee state: MD; Other states where activities take place: PA, WV. 

Recipient name: Anne Arundel Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,077,137; 
Grantee state: MD; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Frederick Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,997,776; 
Grantee state: MD; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: The Community College of Baltimore County; 
Total award amount: $2,585,471; 
Grantee state: MD; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Kennebec Valley Community College; 
Total award amount: $955,831; 
Grantee state: ME; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Southern Maine Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,214,394; 
Grantee state: ME; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Southwestern Michigan College; 
Total award amount: $634,677; 
Grantee state: MI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Alpena Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,941,935; 
Grantee state: MI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Berrien Cass Van Buren Michigan Works!; 
Total award amount: $1,937,112; 
Grantee state: MI; 
Other states where activities take place: IN. 

Recipient name: Washtenaw Community College; 
Total award amount: $150,357; 
Grantee state: MI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Riverland Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,219,453; 
Grantee state: MN; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: The Junior College District of Kansas City - Missouri; 
Total award amount: $1,970,252; 
Grantee state: MO; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Texas County Technical Institute; 
Total award amount: $1,949,954; 
Grantee state: MO; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Coahoma Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,250,560; 
Grantee state: MS; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,928,457; 
Grantee state: MS; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Itawamba Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,951,138; 
Grantee state: MS; 
Other states where activities take place: AL, TN. 

Recipient name: Montana State University - Billings College of 
Technology; 
Total award amount: $1,980,042; 
Grantee state: MT; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Montana State University-Billings College of 
Technology; 
Total award amount: $1,998,885; 
Grantee state: MT; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Trustees of Haywood Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,696,974; 
Grantee state: NC; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: United Tribes Technical College; 
Total award amount: $1,463,996; 
Grantee state: ND; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Central Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,910,185; 
Grantee state: NE; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Northeast Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,999,999; 
Grantee state: NE; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: NH Community Technical College - Manchester/Stratham; 
Total award amount: $1,999,039; 
Grantee state: NH; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Passaic County Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,608,948; 
Grantee state: NJ; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Gloucester County College; 
Total award amount: $2,000,000; 
Grantee state: NJ; 
Other states where activities take place: PA, DE. 

Recipient name: Cumberland County College; 
Total award amount: $1,632,530; 
Grantee state: NJ; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Clovis Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,270,705; 
Grantee state: NM; 
Other states where activities take place: TX. 

Recipient name: Mesalands Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,000,000; 
Grantee state: NM; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Suffolk County Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,377,114; 
Grantee state: NY; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: CUNY Kingsborough Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,620,987; 
Grantee state: NY; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Cuyahoga Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,863,833; 
Grantee state: OH; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Cincinnati State Technical And Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,493,299; 
Grantee state: OH; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Edison State Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,030,387; 
Grantee state: OH; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: City of Cleveland/Cuyahoga County Workforce Area 3; 
Total award amount: $2,289,449; 
Grantee state: OH; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Eastern Oklahoma State College, Inc.; 
Total award amount: $1,786,780; 
Grantee state: OK; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Chemeketa Community College; 
Total award amount: 2,900,000; 
Grantee state: OR; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Blue Mountain Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,220,423; 
Grantee state: OR; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Clackamas Community College; 
Total award amount: $848,486; 
Grantee state: OR; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Lane Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,969,923; 
Grantee state: OR; 
Other states where activities take place: ID. 

Recipient name: Harrisburg Area Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,007,740; 
Grantee state: PA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Northampton County Area Community College; 
Total award amount: $713,025; 
Grantee state: PA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Montgomery County Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,371,264; 
Grantee state: PA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Community College of Rhode Island; 
Total award amount: $1,826,689; 
Grantee state: RI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Midlands Technical College; 
Total award amount: $1,946,563; 
Grantee state: SC; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Cleveland State Community College; 
Total award amount: $861,840; 
Grantee state: TN; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Jackson State Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,941,632; 
Grantee state: TN; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Southwest Tennessee Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,829,320; 
Grantee state: TN; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Walters State Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,939,796; 
Grantee state: TN; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Alamo Community College District; 
Total award amount: $1,344,569; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Amarillo College; 
Total award amount: $1,386,525; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: College of the Mainland; 
Total award amount: $1,909,380; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Midland College; 
Total award amount: $617,291; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: North Central Texas College; 
Total award amount: $1,999,564; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Southwest Texas Junior College; 
Total award amount: $1,929,645; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Texas State Technical College Harlingen; 
Total award amount: $2,064,161; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: The Victoria County Junior College District; 
Total award amount: $1,980,011; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Del Mar College; 
Total award amount: $1,982,812; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Odessa College; 
Total award amount: $1,751,178; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: South Texas College; 
Total award amount: $708,476; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Lamar State College - Orange; 
Total award amount: $1,526,700; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: College of Eastern Utah - San Juan Campus; 
Total award amount: $1,260,893; 
Grantee state: UT; 
Other states where activities take place: AZ. 

Recipient name: Salt Lake Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,997,759; 
Grantee state: UT; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Blue Ridge Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,937,786; 
Grantee state: VA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Northern Virginia Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,221,062; 
Grantee state: VA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Piedmont Virginia Community College - Division of 
Workforce Services; 
Total award amount: $1,479,497; 
Grantee state: VA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Central Virginia Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,249,527; 
Grantee state: VA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Mountain Empire Community College; 
Total award amount: $1,999,266; 
Grantee state: VA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Columbia Basin College; 
Total award amount: $1,992,675; 
Grantee state: WA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Seattle Central Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,762,496; 
Grantee state: WA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Whatcom Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,145,400; 
Grantee state: WA; 
Other states where activities take place: AK. 

Recipient name: Everett Community College; 
Total award amount: $2,000,000; 
Grantee state: WA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Waukesha County Technical College; 
Total award amount: $2,307,306; 
Grantee state: WI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: College of Menominee Nation; 
Total award amount: $2,000,000; 
Grantee state: WI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Madison Area Technical College; 
Total award amount: $1,961,110; 
Grantee state: WI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Milwaukee Area Technical College; 
Total award amount: $1,999,999; 
Grantee state: WI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: West Virginia State Community and Technical College; 
Total award amount: $1,598,212; 
Grantee state: WV; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Northern Wyoming Community College District - Gillette 
Campus; 
Total award amount: $1,997,385; 
Grantee state: WY; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Casper College; 
Total award amount: $1,015,602; 
Grantee state: WY; 
Other states where activities take place: UT, OR, WA, ID, CA. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data. 

[End of table] 

Table 7: WIRED Grantees: 

Recipient name: Alabama Department of Economic & Community Affairs; 
Total award amount: $15,000,000; 
Grantee state: AL; 
Other states where activities take place: MS. 

Recipient name: Alabama Department of Economic & Community Affairs; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: AL; 
Other states where activities take place: TN. 

Recipient name: Arkansas - Department of Workforce Services; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: AR; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Arizona Department of Commerce; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: AZ; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: State of California; 
Total award amount: $15,000,000; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: California Employment Development Department; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: CA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Colorado Department of Labor & Employment; 
Total award amount: $15,000,000; 
Grantee state: CO; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Connecticut Department of Labor; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: CT; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: State of Florida; 
Total award amount: $15,000,000; 
Grantee state: FL; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: ID; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Indiana Department of Workforce Development; 
Total award amount: $15,000,000; 
Grantee state: IN; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Indiana Department of Workforce Development; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: IN; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Kansas Department of Commerce; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: KS; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Kentucky Office of Employment and Training; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: KY; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Maine Department of Labor; 
Total award amount: $14,402,780; 
Grantee state: ME; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Michigan Department of Labor; 
Total award amount: $15,000,000; 
Grantee state: MI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Michigan Department of Labor; 
Total award amount: $14,996,953; 
Grantee state: MI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Michigan Department of Labor (Detroit); 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: MI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic 
Development; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: MN; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Missouri Department of Economic Development; 
Total award amount: $14,922,702; 
Grantee state: MO; 
Other states where activities take place: KS. 

Recipient name: Missouri Division of Workforce Development; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: MO; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Mississippi Department of Employment Security; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: MS; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Montana Department of Labor and Industry; 
Total award amount: $15,000,000; 
Grantee state: MT; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: North Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of 
Employment and Training; 
Total award amount: $14,685,000; 
Grantee state: NC; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce 
Development; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: NJ; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce 
Development; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: NJ; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: NM; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: New York Department of Labor; 
Total award amount: $14,792,509; 
Grantee state: NY; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Governor's Grant Office - Ohio; 
Total award amount: $100,000; 
Grantee state: OH; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Ohio Department of Job and Family Services; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: OH; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce 
Development; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: OR; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry; 
Total award amount: $15,000,000; 
Grantee state: PA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: PA; 
Other states where activities take place: NJ, DE. 

Recipient name: Puerto Rico Department of Labor; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: PR; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Texas Workforce Commission; 
Total award amount: $100,000; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: State of Texas - Office of the Governor; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: TX; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Utah Department of Workforce Services; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: UT; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Virginia Employment Commission; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: VA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Washington Employment Security Department; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: WA; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: WI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Recipient name: Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development; 
Total award amount: $5,000,000; 
Grantee state: WI; 
Other states where activities take place: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Labor grants data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Department of Labor Technical Assistance Contracts: 

Table 8: Department of Labor Technical Assistance Contracts Related to 
High Growth, Community Based, and WIRED Grant Initiatives: 

Contractor: DTI Associates, Inc; 
Contract amount: $23,236. 

Contractor: DAH Consulting, Inc., and Aspen Institute; 
Contract amount: $39,566. 

Contractor: Coffey Communications, LLC; 
Contract amount: $27,000. 

Contractor: Coffey Communications, LLC; 
Contract amount: $250,000. 

Contractor: Jobs for the Future; 
Contract amount: $30,000. 

Contractor: M.H. West & Co., Inc.; 
Contract amount: $1,499,977. 

Contractor: TATC Consulting; 
Contract amount: $1,892,947. 

Contractor: Leonard Resource Group; 
Contract amount: $700,000. 

Contractor: DTI Associates, Inc; 
Contract amount: $2,497,259. 

Contractor: Berkeley Policy Associates Old H-1B Technical Skill 
Training Grant Program, recast for HG; 
Contract amount: $399,835. 

Contractor: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.; 
Contract amount: $99,842. 

Contractor: DAH Consulting, Inc.; 
Contract amount: $349,995. 

Contractor: M.H. West & Co., Inc.; 
Contract amount: $2,252,515. 

Contractor: Technology & Management Services, Inc.; 
Contract amount: $2,287,884. 

Contractor: New Economy Strategies; 
Contract amount: $3,750,000. 

Contractor: Total; 
Contract amount: $16,100,056. 

Source: U. S. Department of Labor: 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

U.S. Department of Labor: 
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training: 
Washington. D.C. 20210: 

Mr. George A. Scott: 
Director: 
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Scott: 

This letter is the Department of Labor's (DOL) response to the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report No. 08-486 
entitled, "Employment and Training Program Grants: Evaluating Impact 
and Enhancing Monitoring Would Improve Accountability." We appreciate 
the opportunity to comment on the draft. 

Overall Comments on Report: 

GAO's report on the Employment and Training Administration's (ETA) 
three grant initiatives, High Growth Job Training Initiative (HGJTI), 
Community Based Job Training Grants (CBJTG), and Workforce Innovation 
in Regional Economic Development (WIRED), makes conclusions regarding 
all three initiatives without taking into consideration some key 
distinctions. Although all three initiatives are connected to ensuring 
more workers receive training and education to access and fill jobs and 
careers in high growth industries and occupations, they are very 
different initiatives with different objectives. 

None of the three initiatives is considered to be a research project. 
Consequently, these initiatives were not designed to compare 
participant outcomes with the participant outcomes achieved under the 
WIA formula programs. Instead, these initiatives are designed to 
highlight model approaches and necessary partnerships with industry, 
community colleges, economic development organizations, foundations, 
and investors. 

Responses to Overarching Findings: 

DOL offers its responses below to several conclusions drawn by GAO on 
the attached report. 

GAO suggests that Labor did not plan well to get the appropriate 
performance and outcome data to enable comparisons to other programs 
(HGJTI and WIRED). 

High growth industries identified a variety of workforce challenges, 
including industry image, recruitment and retention, skills 
development, and capacity of training providers. 

The workforce solutions funded by the HGJTI addressed these challenges 
in a variety of ways. HGJTI grantees implemented workforce solutions 
within a given industry through different strategies, making it 
difficult to compare across grants. Additionally, some grants focused 
on solutions for a single challenge and others implemented solutions to 
a number of challenges. These differences among grants made it 
necessary to assess the individual grants using different 
methodologies - an approach ETA has attempted since the inception of 
the initiative. Over time, the HGJTI has become more "programmatic" in 
nature, and ETA has moved to formalize the reporting and performance 
measurement processes, which are expected to be in place by July 2008. 

Evaluations are in progress for all three generations of WIRED 
grantees. Similar to the HGJTI, the approaches in the thirty-nine (39) 
regions funded under WIRED are all very different. Every region has 
been required to identify their region's specific outcomes and track 
against them, and, where job training is provided, to capture data 
consistent with the Office of Management and Budget's common measures. 
The outcomes for common measures are not yet available due to the 
timing of training, which generally follows a period of building 
capacity to do the training and the lag in gaining access to wage 
record data. Many of the region-specific indicators are more long term 
indicators, such as a reduction in high school dropouts, new business 
start-ups, and job creation. 

GAO finds fault with the HGJTI's non-competitive process related to 
several issues such as: inclusion of workforce system partners in the 
process; criteria for grant review was not documented and changed over 
time; where WIA funds were used, there was a lack of documentation of 
statutory requirements; and documentation supporting the procurement 
process was not sufficient (citing the Office of Inspector General's 
(OIG) report). 

The HGJTI represents a systemic change from the approach taken by ETA 
in the past and is designed to propel the workforce investment system 
to become demand-driven. With this new initiative, ETA felt that worker 
and employer needs would be served most expeditiously and effectively 
by awarding the early HGJTI grants on a non-competitive basis. It was, 
however, ETA's intent from the early phases of the HGJTI to move to a 
fully competitive investment model, and ETA began that process in 
Program Year 2004. Currently, all HGJTI grants are awarded through a 
competitive process. 

Prior to making the initial noncompetitive awards, ETA took a rigorous 
approach to identifying growth industries, collecting data from 
industry leaders, and reviewing over 450 unsolicited grant 
applications. Many of the reviewed proposals put forth truly innovative 
approaches to workforce solutions, and many of the applicants 
demonstrated a commitment to their approach by proposing to provide 
substantial funding or other contributions to the project. ETA made 
sole source awards consistent with the DOL policies and procedures 
governing non-competitive awards and Federal procurement rules. 

* Inclusion of workforce system partners: 

The HGJTI had a primary goal of changing the perspective and approach 
through which the workforce system operates. Rather than focusing only 
on the individual job seeker, HGJTI set forth a framework where 
employers' needs and the training associated with employment 
opportunities are the starting point for action. This initiative 
recognized the importance of strategic partnerships among the workforce 
system and employers in the implementation of these actions. As GAO 
identified in their report, ETA went to significant lengths to gain 
workforce system involvement in its HGJTI efforts. ETA would add that 
in addition to those outreach efforts specifically referenced, ETA 
routinely issued press releases on all HGJTI grants, posted grant 
information on the ETA website, worked collaboratively with the 
National Association of Workforce Boards and the National Association 
of State Workforce Agencies to fully describe the initiative, and 
developed Workforce3One.org - a website designed to promote demand-
driven approaches. 

GAO also suggests that workforce boards faced barriers to adopting the 
framework for the HGJTI and WIRED. In response, ETA asserts that the 
framework for the HGJTI and WIRED area part of the vision of WIA. 
Workforce boards are intended to drive the use of WIA resources toward 
meeting industry needs and to develop the capacity of the workforce 
system to address future training and education demands. Additionally, 
the workforce boards should work to leverage additional resources 
beyond those directly provided by WIA. Many workforce boards have 
proven to be exceptionally entrepreneurial in their collaboration with 
strategic partners and have leveraged a wide array of resources beyond 
those granted through WIA to successfully implement these approaches to 
workforce development. ETA has supported and continues to support, the 
workforce system with these initiatives by providing flexibility in the 
use of WIA funds through the issuance of waivers and by providing 
significant technical assistance to help workforce boards learn how to 
implement these approaches. ETA agrees that a more flexible and 
reformed WIA statute would enable the workforce system to better engage 
in these approaches, but we do not agree that any current challenges 
cannot be overcome. 

* Criteria for grant review was not documented and changed over time: 

ETA provided GAO with a history of the HGJTI that clearly stated that 
DOL reviewed these proposals with an intent to choose those proposals 
that: 1) were innovative; 2) responded directly to the issue areas 
defined by industry; 3) represented strategic partnerships that 
included business and industry, education, and the public workforce 
system; and, 4) in many cases leveraged both public and private funding 
from other sources. Over time, ETA also began to find that similar 
workforce challenges emerged across industry sectors, such as the image 
of the industry, the need for a pipeline of youth, the need to build 
educational capacity, the need for well-defined skills and 
competencies, the need for understanding career ladders and lattices 
within an industry, and the need to engage untapped talent pools. As we 
gained this knowledge, ETA began to look for solutions in specific 
industries that covered these challenges. It is not improper to modify 
the standards for selecting grantees when the agency's assessment of 
the workforce needs changes. 

Documentation supporting the procurement process was not sufficient 
(See OIG report). 

ETA strongly disagreed with the majority of the findings of the OIG's 
audit report on HGJTI and, where GAO repeats these findings, ETA 
continues to disagree. There are no specific rules for documenting the 
decision-making process for non-competitive grants and ETA believes 
that its methods of documentation went beyond practices usually applied 
in overseeing noncompetitive grants. However, as GAO suggests, ETA 
concurs that additional documentation would be valuable and has taken 
steps to change its processes to require such documentation. 

GAO suggests that HGJTI and WIRED should have been included in ETA's 
strategic plan and research agenda. 

While the strategic plan is part of the program/budget exercise applied 
mainly to statutory programs, ETA discusses both the HGJTI and WIRED 
initiatives in its annual budget request, which provides comprehensive 
policy guidance on agency priorities. In addition, the DOL's Strategic 
Plan for Fiscal Years 2006-2011 discusses how the HGJTI is helping 
workers by "targeting private and public resources and support to 
capitalize on industries and sectors experiencing economic growth and 
expansion" (page 11) and "increasing system focus on understanding, 
predicting, and populating the high-growth marketplace, using models 
and lessons developed by the President's High Growth Job Training 
Initiative" (page 28). The strategic plan also lists the HGJTI in the 
active program evaluations table (page 76). The strategic plan also 
discusses how the Department is developing competitiveness through 
WIRED in response to the President's Competitiveness Agenda (page 29). 

ETA's Five-Year Research, Demonstration and Evaluation Strategic Plan 
for 2007-2012 identifies the HGJTI as one of the current research, 
demonstration and evaluation projects being implemented (pages 10-11). 
In addition, under future research, the plan discusses an option to 
measure integration success by evaluating the partnerships within the 
HGJTI, CBJTI, and WIRED initiatives to determine their role in training 
outcomes and regional economic stability and growth. ETA has taken 
initial steps towards measuring integration through the HGJTI 
evaluation and the WIRED initiative evaluation (pages 16-17). 

Responses to Recommendations for Executive Action: 

On page 27 of the draft report, GAO made three Recommendations for 
Executive Action. DOL would like to respond. 

Recommendation #1: 

Take steps to ensure that the department can evaluate the impact of the 
initiatives so that it can draw strong conclusions based on its 
evaluations, such as following through with plans to collect consistent 
data, integrating the initiatives into its overall research agenda with 
relevant performance goals and indicators, and including these 
initiatives in its assessment of the impact of WIA services. 

ETA has taken initial steps to evaluate the impact of the three 
initiatives and is continuously looking for better methods to evaluate 
the outcomes of these complex and innovative strategic approaches. ETA 
is committed to identifying methods for collecting hard data on common 
measures for all three initiatives where grant dollars are used for 
direct training. 

ETA reiterates that the three initiatives are already integrated in its 
most recent five-year strategic plan. ETA also disagrees with the 
premise that these three initiatives belong in its assessment of the 
impact of WIA services, since these initiatives have their own 
evaluation efforts. 

Recommendation #2: 

Direct the ETA to ensure that in awarding noncompetitive grants, 
statutory program requirements are met and that this is documented. 

ETA has processed unsolicited proposals based on established procedures 
since 1999. ETA has recently updated this process in an effort to 
streamline and improve accountability. Under the updated process, 
proposals undergo a thorough preliminary review to assess compliance 
with applicable Federal laws and regulations, alignment with the 
Secretary of Labor's strategic goals, ETA's guiding principles, and our 
current policy and investment focus. Compliance with statutory 
requirements is now fully documented. 

Organizations submitting proposals that are not compliant with these 
criteria do not receive further consideration. Proposals compliant with 
these criteria are forwarded to agency programmatic experts for a 
comprehensive feasibility review. If this comprehensive review results 
in an equivocal recommendation, the proposal is peer reviewed. 
Proposals that receive a favorable review by programmatic experts or a 
peer review group, as applicable, are recommended to the Assistant 
Secretary for funding consideration. Funding for unsolicited (non-
competitive) proposals for amounts greater than $100,000 must be 
approved by the DOL Procurement Review Board (PRB) and must meet one or 
more of the criteria for non-competitive funding. 

All facets of this process, including the initial, comprehensive, and 
peer reviews; funding recommendations; and PRB requests and 
determinations are fully documented, and the documentation is 
maintained for the period required by regulation and statute. 

The Office of Grants and Contract Management will maintain all approved 
PRB recommendations that are funded in the official grant file. 

Recommendation #3: 

Develop and implement a risk-based monitoring approach for WIRED and a 
schedule for its use. 

ETA plans to implement a risk-based monitoring approach for the WIRED 
grants by June 2008. The Core Monitoring Guide (the Guide) and 
Financial Supplement used for all ETA grants, including the HGJTI and 
CBJT grants, will be the source documents for these reviews. The Guide 
will be supplemented further with a WIRED-specific set of objectives 
and questions designed to elicit information that is specific to the 
WIRED grants, including activities such as education, marketing, and 
intellectual property development. While the Guide and supplements will 
be used to determine adherence to requirements at the state or grantee 
level, they will also be used to determine adherence to requirements at 
the regional or subgrantee levels. 

A schedule for these reviews is in the initial stage, with the first 
review currently scheduled for the week of June 2, 2008. At that time, 
the supplements will be field-tested for any needed changes and a core 
group of reviewers will be trained in the use of the Guide and report 
development. Subsequent to the initial review, Federal Project Officers 
assigned to the WIRED grants will be trained. We anticipate that the 
second review will be conducted the week of June 23, 2008, with the 
remainder of the Generation I grantees being reviewed by the end of 
September 2008. Generation II and III grantees will be reviewed after 
October 1, 2008. Grantees will be notified of the upcoming reviews at 
the WIRED Academy to be held May 1-2, 2008, in Boston. 

The Guide and the Financial Supplement have previously been provided to 
GAO. The WIRED specific supplement is currently in development. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Brent R. Orrell: 
Acting Assistant Secretary: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

George A. Scott, Director, 202-512-7215 or [email protected]: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Patrick di Battista, Assistant Director, and Julianne Hartman Cutts 
managed this engagement. 

Karen A. Brown and Nancy Purvine, Senior Analysts, and Stephanie Toby, 
Analyst, made significant contributions to this report. Jean McSween 
provided methodological assistance, and Jessica Botsford provided legal 
assistance. The team also benefited from key technical assistance from 
Susan Aschoff, Pat L. Bohan, Paul Caban, Jessica Orr, Michael Springer, 
and Charles Willson. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Improve the 
Workforce System. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-
1061T]. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007. 

Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve 
Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program Impact. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-594]. Washington, 
D.C.: May 24, 2007. 

Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in 
Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help Gauge 
Employer Involvement. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-
07-167]. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2006. 

National Emergency Grants: Labor Has Improved Its Grant Award 
Timeliness and Data Collection, but Further Steps Can Improve Process. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-870]. Washington, 
D.C.: September 5, 2006. 

Discretionary Grants: Further Tightening of Education's Procedures for 
Making Awards Could Improve Transparency and Accountability. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-268]. Washington, 
D.C.: February 21, 2006. 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor and States Have Taken Actions to 
Improve Data Quality, but Additional Steps Are Needed. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-650]. Washington, D.C.: June 
29, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches 
to Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-539]. Washington, D.C.: May 
27, 2005. 

Workforce Investment Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied 
with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address 
Employers' Needs. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-
259]. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2005. 

Public Community Colleges and Technical Schools: Most Schools Use Both 
Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-4]. Washington, D.C.: October 
18, 2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed 
Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-657]. Washington, 
D.C.: June 1, 2004. 

National Emergency Grants: Labor Is Instituting Changes to Assess 
Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-496]. Washington, D.C.: April 
16, 2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve Quality 
of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-308]. Washington, D.C.: 
February 23, 2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to 
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information 
Sharing Is Needed. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-
725]. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003. 

Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs, 
but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-353]. Washington, 
D.C.: February 14, 2003. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] 29 U.S.C. ï¿½ 2916. 

[2] 29 U.S.C. ï¿½ 2916a. 

[3] This program imposes a fee on employers that hire foreign workers 
to fill positions in specialized professions such as computer 
technology. 

[4] The High Growth Job Training Initiative was funded under both WIA 
and ACWIA provisions; the Community Based Job Training Grants were 
funded under the WIA provision and WIRED grants were funded under 
ACWIA. The High Growth grants were awarded under WIA as pilots and 
demonstrations. The WIA provision requires that grants provide direct 
services to individuals, include an evaluative component, and are made 
to entities with recognized expertise. The ACWIA provision requires 
Labor to identify industries and economic sectors projected to 
experience significant growth. In addition the ACWIA provision requires 
Labor to use H-1B funds to award grants to entities to provide job 
training and related activities, ensure that grants are equitably 
distributed geographically, and ensure that training activities funded 
by such grants are coordinated with the workforce investment system. 

[5] This includes activities carried out under section 171. 

[6] In evaluating the impact of programs, outcome data from the program 
are compared to a baseline. Considered the most rigorous method for 
conducting impact evaluations, the experimental method randomly assigns 
participants to two groups--one that receives a program service (or 
treatment) and one that does not (control group). The resulting outcome 
data on both groups are compared and the difference in outcomes between 
the groups is taken to demonstrate the program's impact. In a quasi- 
experimental approach, program participation is not randomly assigned, 
but outcome data for individuals who participated in a program are 
compared to others who did not. 

[7] GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have 
Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to 
Help, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-657] 
(Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004). 

[8] GAO, Veterans' Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve 
Information on Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program Impact, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-594] (Washington, 
D.C.: May 24, 2007). 

[9] 31 U.S.C. ï¿½ 6301(3). 

[10] Department of Labor Manual Series 2-836(G) - Exclusions and 
Exceptions to Competitive Procedures for grants and cooperative 
agreements. 

[11] The Domestic Working Group Grant Accountability Project, Guide to 
Opportunities for Improving Grant Accountability, October 2005. The 
group was composed of representatives from federal, state, and local 
audit organizations, including Labor's inspector general. 

[12] OMB Circular A-133, which implements the Single Audit Act (31 
U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½7501-7507), requires nonfederal entities that expend $500,000 
or more in federal funds to have a single or program-specific audit 
conducted for that year. 

[13] According to Labor, the High Growth initiative included several 
key steps prior to awarding the grants and is ongoing through 
dissemination of grant results. Key steps included: identification of 
high-growth, high-demand industries; industry scans to understand the 
size, trends, and scope of each industry; industry executive forums to 
hear workforce challenges; workforce solutions forums to develop 
solutions to address these challenges; investments in workforce 
solutions (i.e., grants) for industry-identified challenges and follow- 
on competitive opportunities; and dissemination strategies for High 
Growth products. 

[14] 5 U.S.C. ï¿½ 306. 

[15] While acknowledging that reporting practices for High Growth were 
not established fully at the initiative's outset, officials said this 
was because the nature of the initiative posed inherent challenges in 
developing a common reporting and performance model: each grant was 
different, with different training models for different populations; 
some grants were for training, others were for capacity building. Labor 
said that as it became clear that more rigorous procedures for 
reporting were needed, it took the necessary steps to address the 
problem. 

[16] Labor developed a proposed approach to collect and report the 
common measures for WIRED grants using the existing state WIA 
performance system, but, as of November 2007, it had not yet collected 
them. 

[17] This requirement did not apply to grants awarded under the WIA 
provision authorizing High Growth grants. 

[18] GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

[19] 29 U.S.C ï¿½ 2916. 

[20] 29 U.S.C ï¿½ 2916(b)(1) and 29 U.S.C ï¿½ 2916(b)(2)(B). 

[21] Labor's Procurement Review Board is responsible for reviewing 
various acquisition activities, including most unsolicited grant 
proposals, and recommending approval or disapproval to the department's 
Chief Acquisitions Officer. 

[22] Department of Labor Manual Series 2-836(G) - Exclusions and 
Exceptions to Competitive Procedures for grants and cooperative 
agreements. There are five additional exceptions listed for awarding 
noncompetitive grants: (1) a noncompetitive award is authorized or 
required by statute; (2) the activity is essential to the satisfactory 
completion of an activity presently funded by DOL; (3) it is necessary 
to fund a recipient with an established relationship with the agency 
for a variety of reasons; (4) the application for the activity was 
evaluated under the criteria of the competition for which the 
application was submitted, was rated high enough to have been selected 
under the competition, and was not selected because the application was 
mishandled; and (5) the Secretary determined that a noncompetitive 
award is in the public interest. 

[23] U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General--Office of 
Audit, High Growth Job Training Initiative: Decisions for Non- 
competitive Awards Not Adequately Justified, 02-08-201-03-390 (Nov. 2, 
2007). 

[24] Labor identified a 14th sector--Homeland Security--in 2005 and did 
not hold an executive or solutions forum for this sector, according to 
officials. 

[25] Labor conducted industry scans of the size, trends, and scope of 
certain industries to understand the industries and any known 
challenges. In this process, they identified high growth/high-demand 
industries that have a high-demand for workers. Officials said that 
they did not intend to identify all high-growth industry sectors in the 
economy, but to provide a framework for the process to be used at the 
state and local levels. 

[26] Solutions forums were not held for the information technology and 
retail sectors. 

[27] Some states had representatives from the state workforce 
investment board participating and some states had a workforce-related 
agency such as those involved in employment and/or economic 
development. 

[28] Labor's risk-based monitoring strategy differs from single audits. 
Entities receiving Labor grants are subject to the provisions of the 
Single Audit Act if certain conditions are met. The Single Audit Act 
established the concept of the single audit to replace multiple grant 
audits with one audit of a recipient as a whole. As such a single audit 
is an organization-wide audit that covers, among other things, the 
recipient's internal controls and its compliance with applicable 
provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants. In contrast, 
Labor's risk-based approach focuses on the readiness and capacity of 
the grantee to operate the grant including compliance with laws, 
regulations, and specific program requirements. 

[29] U.S. Department of Labor--Office of Inspector General, report 
prepared by KPMG LLP, Management Advisory Comments Identified in an 
Audit of the Consolidated Financial Statements for the Year Ended 
September 30, 2007, 22-08-006-13-001 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 20, 2008). 

[30] This observation was based on audits of three Labor grantees 
during fiscal year 2007. 

[31] A geographic information system is a computer application used to 
store, view, and analyze geographical information, especially maps. 

[32] Labor's grant monitoring plans are to reflect any program-specific 
monitoring requirements as well as specific requirements for on-site 
visits to grantees with new grants and those rated "at-risk" though the 
risk assessment process. 

[33] Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 
Core Monitoring Guide (Washington D.C.: April 2005). 

[34] John Trutko, Carolyn O'Brien, Pamela Holcomb, and Demetra Smith 
Nightingale, Implementation and Sustainability: Emerging Lessons from 
the Early High Growth Job Training Initiative (HGJTI) Grants, Final 
Report (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, April 2007). 

[End of section] 

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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

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

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: *** End of document. ***