Workforce Development: Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers	 
Collaborate to Meet 21st Century Workforce Needs (15-MAY-08,	 
GAO-08-547).							 
                                                                 
In the future, businesses will demand workers with higher-level  
skills and more education. Community colleges are key providers  
of career and technical training as well as traditional academic 
education. These colleges can also play important roles in the	 
one-stop system created by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA),	 
through which a variety of federally funded employment and	 
training programs provide services. Given the importance of	 
community colleges to workforce development, GAO was asked to	 
examine (1) how community colleges meet the workforce training	 
needs of their communities; (2) what community colleges do to	 
integrate with the nation's one-stop system; (3) the conditions  
or practices that enhance or impede these efforts; and (4) the	 
actions the Departments of Labor and Education have taken to	 
encourage linkages between community colleges and the workforce  
investment system, including one-stops. To address these	 
objectives, GAO visited 20 community colleges, surveyed one-stop 
centers and their associated workforce investment boards, and	 
talked to Labor and Education officials. Labor and Education	 
generally agreed with GAO's findings.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-547 					        
    ACCNO:   A82122						        
  TITLE:     Workforce Development: Community Colleges and One-Stop   
Centers Collaborate to Meet 21st Century Workforce Needs	 
     DATE:   05/15/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Adult education					 
	     Colleges and universities				 
	     Community colleges 				 
	     Continuing education				 
	     Education program evaluation			 
	     Educational grants 				 
	     Employee training					 
	     Employees						 
	     Employment 					 
	     Employment assistance programs			 
	     Higher education					 
	     Locally administered programs			 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Staff utilization					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Vocational education				 
	     Youth employment programs				 
	     Knowledge, skills and abilities			 
	     Skilled labor					 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-547

   

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: 

Workforce Development: 

Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers Collaborate to Meet 21st 
Century Workforce Needs: 

Workforce Development: 

GAO-08-547: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-547, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In the future, businesses will demand workers with higher-level skills 
and more education. Community colleges are key providers of career and 
technical training as well as traditional academic education. These 
colleges can also play important roles in the one-stop system created 
by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), through which a variety of 
federally funded employment and training programs provide services. 
Given the importance of community colleges to workforce development, 
GAO was asked to examine (1) how community colleges meet the workforce 
training needs of their communities; (2) what community colleges do to 
integrate with the nationï¿½s one-stop system; (3) the conditions or 
practices that enhance or impede these efforts; and (4) the actions the 
Departments of Labor and Education have taken to encourage linkages 
between community colleges and the workforce investment system, 
including one-stops. To address these objectives, GAO visited 20 
community colleges, surveyed one-stop centers and their associated 
workforce investment boards, and talked to Labor and Education 
officials. 

Labor and Education generally agreed with GAOï¿½s findings. 

What GAO Found: 

The community colleges that GAO visited developed various approaches 
and programs for career and technical training to meet the needs of 
industry sectors, individual employers, and certain types of students 
and workers. Through a variety of outreach, relationship building, and 
data collection efforts, community colleges have come to understand the 
specific training needs of key industries in their regions and use this 
information to keep programs current or develop new programs to address 
these needs. Community college activities include providing contract or 
customized training to the employees of specific employers; working 
with small businesses; and targeting training and education programs to 
specific populations, such as disadvantaged adults, high-school 
students transitioning to college, and one-stop clients. 

Many of the community colleges that GAO visited integrate with their 
one-stops by operating the one-stop centers, colocating college staff 
at the one-stop, and participating on workforce investment boards. 
Nationwide, GAO estimated that about 11 percent of one-stops are 
operated solely or jointly by a community college, while 34 percent 
have community college staff colocated at the center. Similarly, GAO 
estimated that, nationwide, 49 percent of local workforce investment 
boards have community college presidents represented on their boards. 
Some of the benefits of these arrangements include cost sharing and 
improved communication among participating programs. Officials at the 
colleges and one-stops that GAO visited reported also conducting other 
joint activities, such as strategic planning and data sharing. 

Community college and workforce officials cited state funding and 
leadership as factors that help integration between community colleges 
and the workforce system but identified WIA performance system measures 
and WIA funding issues as impediments. Under WIA, states and local 
workforce areas must meet performance levels in their Adult, Dislocated 
Worker, and Youth programs that can be difficult to obtain when serving 
some populations, such as those on Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families or youth, causing disincentives for the one-stops to serve 
them. In a 2004 report, GAO recommended that Labor develop a systematic 
way to account for differences in the population groups served by 
statesï¿½ one-stop centers and apply it to all states when establishing 
their performance levels. Labor has not taken action on this 
recommendation; however, Labor officials stated that states may use 
their own adjustment models and that the department has worked to 
ensure consistency in the process. 

It is uncertain whether Labor and Educationï¿½s efforts to build linkages 
between community colleges and the workforce system will be successful 
in encouraging community colleges to focus on workforce development. 
Laborï¿½s WIRED, High Growth, and Community Based grants aim, in part, to 
help community colleges and other workforce entities collaborate. As 
discussed in GAOï¿½s recent report on these grants, Laborï¿½s evaluations 
do not fully measure their effectiveness, and GAO recommends that Labor 
take steps to do so. Labor and Education jointly funded a $1.5 million 
initiative in 2006 to help build linkages between community colleges 
and the workforce system. The agencies did not conduct an evaluation, 
but plan to issue a report in 2008 about the participantsï¿½ challenges 
and successes. 

What GAO Recommends: 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-547]. For more 
information, contact George A. Scott at (202) 512-7215 or 
[email protected] 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Community Colleges Tailor Career and Technical Training Courses to Meet 
the Workforce Development Needs of Businesses, Workers, and Students: 

Community Colleges Integrate with the One-Stop System in Many Ways, 
Including Operating and Colocating with One-Stops and Participating on 
WIBs: 

State Funding and Leadership Help Community Colleges' Workforce 
Efforts, While WIA Performance System Measures and WIA Funding Issues 
Present Challenges: 

Labor and Education Have Focused on Community Colleges' Workforce 
Development Efforts through Targeted Grant Programs and a Strategic 
Partnerships Initiative, but Their Impact Is Not Fully Known: 

Concluding Observations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Community Colleges Selected for Site Visits: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Types of Educational Programs Offered by Community Colleges: 

Table 2: WIA Mandatory Programs and Related Federal Agencies: 

Table 3: Community Colleges Selected for Site Visits: 

Figure: 

Figure 1: WIA Funding for Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth Programs, 
Fiscal Years 2000 to 2007: 

Abbreviations: 

ESL: English as a Second Language: 

ETPL: Eligible Training Provider List: 

GED: General Equivalency Diploma: 

I-BEST: Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training: 

ITA: Individual Training Account: 

NAAL: National Assessment of Adult Literacy: 

TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: 

WIA: Workforce Investment Act: 

WIB: workforce investment board: 

WIRED: Workforce Innovation and Regional Economic Development: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

May 15, 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 Patty Murray: 
Chair: 
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: 
United States Senate: 

The United States is moving increasingly toward a knowledge-based 
economy, requiring workers to have higher-level skills and more 
education. By 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts that 
almost 54 percent of total job openings will be filled by those with 
some college education or a bachelor's degree or higher. Furthermore, 
global competition has resulted in companies laying off workers and 
moving their operations to lower-cost locations, sometimes resulting in 
workers needing to be retrained for other occupations. The nation's 
approximately 1,200 community colleges serve over 6.5 million students-
-a population that has increased almost 24 percent since 1990. In 
addition to providing traditional academic programs, community colleges 
are providers of education and training for those seeking basic skills 
for entry into the workforce as well as those seeking to acquire new 
skills or upgrade existing ones to obtain a different job or retain 
current employment. 

In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), requiring 
states and localities to bring together federally funded employment and 
training programs into a comprehensive workforce investment system, 
called the one-stop system. This system provides a range of employment 
assistance for eligible individuals, including training. These 
individuals can obtain training services from any approved training 
provider, which can include community colleges. In addition to helping 
job seekers, the one-stop system also establishes relationships with 
employers to assist them in finding skilled workers. Four agencies--the 
Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing 
and Urban Development--fund and administer programs, which are 
mandatory partners in the one-stop system. Labor is responsible for the 
largest number of these programs, followed by Education, and is also 
responsible for providing guidance to states and localities on 
delivering services through the one-stop system. Other federal, state, 
local, and private sector programs may also serve as partners with the 
approval of the local workforce board, which is the governing entity 
for the one-stop system within the local workforce investment area. 

Community colleges can also be involved in other workforce programs 
that Labor funds. Two of these programs are the High Growth Job 
Training Initiative (High Growth) and the Community-Based Job Training 
Grants (Community Based), which train workers for jobs projected to 
experience growth or require new skill sets. A third program is the 
Workforce Innovation and Regional Economic Development (WIRED) grants, 
which can include developing a pipeline of skilled workers as one part 
of a regional economic development strategy.[Footnote 1] 

As Congress moves toward reauthorization of WIA, and given the 
importance of community colleges to workforce development, the Senate 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions requested that we 
review community colleges' roles in workforce training and the nation's 
workforce system. Specifically, we examined (1) how community colleges 
meet the workforce training needs of their communities; (2) what 
community colleges do to integrate with the nation's one-stop system; 
(3) the conditions or practices that enhance or impede these efforts; 
and (4) the actions Labor and Education have taken to encourage 
linkages between community colleges and the workforce investment 
system, including one-stops. 

To address these objectives, we conducted site visits at 20 community 
colleges in 6 states--Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, 
Oregon, and Washington (see app. II). We selected these states or a 
specific community college in a state on the basis of expert 
recommendations or research studies that highlighted places known to be 
active in workforce development or to be engaged in innovative 
initiatives. We also considered other criteria, including 
recommendations from Labor; receipt of a High Growth, WIRED, or 
Community Based grant; receipt of a waiver from the Eligible Training 
Provider List (ETPL)--which is a list of training vendors approved by 
the state and local workforce boards; colocation of the college and the 
one-stop; state unemployment rates; and geographical diversity. During 
these site visits, we conducted semistructured interviews with 
community college officials, state and local workforce officials, and 
representatives of community college statewide associations. In some 
cases, we also toured the one-stop facilities that partnered with our 
selected schools. We also conducted short Web-based surveys of a 
nationally representative sample of 311 workforce investment boards 
(WIB)--the governing entity of the one-stop system within a local area-
-and 334 one-stop centers that were associated with these 
WIBs.[Footnote 2] The survey response rates were 82 percent and 73 
percent, respectively. All estimates from the surveys have a margin of 
error of plus or minus 8 percent, unless otherwise noted in the report. 
(See app. I for more detailed information about our scope and 
methodology.) We conducted semistructured interviews with Labor and 
Education officials, as well as representatives of employers' 
associations, in addition to reviewing relevant research and agency 
regulations and guidance. We conducted this performance audit from 
April 2007 through May 2008 in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

The community colleges that we visited developed various approaches and 
programs for career and technical training to meet the needs of 
industry sectors, individual employers, and certain types of students 
and workers. Through a variety of outreach, relationship building, and 
data collection efforts, community colleges have come to understand the 
specific training needs of key industries in their region and use this 
information to keep programs current or develop new ones to address 
these needs. The colleges that we visited receive input about programs 
and courses from many sources, including labor market data and 
analyses; advisory committees or skill panels, which include 
representatives from local businesses or entities representing a large 
business sector; and community organizations, such as the local 
chambers of commerce. For example, Kirkwood Community College in Iowa 
has established 80 advisory committees, representing about 1,000 
businesses from its community. Most of the community colleges that we 
visited also addressed employer needs by providing training to the 
employees of specific employers through contract or customized 
training. Contract training allows a community college to respond 
quickly to an individual employer, by developing either a specific 
training course or an entire training plan. The colleges that we 
visited also worked closely with small businesses in their communities. 
Some colleges that we visited had developed programs targeted to 
economically and educationally disadvantaged adults, such as those on 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), to assist them in 
ensuring their successful completion of community college programs. 
Oregon, for example, was implementing statewide its career pathways 
model, which is an approach for providing education and training in a 
way that allows students to progressively move to higher-wage positions 
within an occupation as they complete more training. To build 
transitions between secondary and postsecondary education and prepare 
the future workforce, several of the colleges that we visited had dual 
enrollment or related programs with high schools. These programs allow 
high-school students to earn community college credit for either 
technical and occupational training or academic transfer programs while 
still in school. We also found that community colleges were key 
training providers for one-stop clients. Based on our survey of one- 
stop managers, we estimated that 40 percent of the one-stop clients who 
were enrolled in training by a one-stop from July 2006 through June 
2007 selected a community college to obtain their training. 

The community colleges that we visited integrate with their one-stops 
through operating the one-stop centers, colocating college staff at the 
one-stops, participating on the local WIB, and taking part in other 
joint activities. Community college and workforce officials explained 
that some of the benefits of these arrangements included cost savings 
and improved communication among participating programs. For example, 
at the one-stop in Mason City, Iowa, which is operated by the North 
Iowa Area Community College, half of the manager's salary is paid by 
the college. Based on our survey of one-stop centers, we estimated that 
about 11 percent of one-stops nationwide are operated solely or jointly 
by a community college, while 34 percent have community college staff 
colocated at the center. Community college presidents and senior staff 
also participate in one-stop governance by serving on the local WIB. 
Many of the community colleges that we visited had such an arrangement; 
nationwide, we estimated that 49 percent of local WIBs have community 
college presidents represented on their boards. Additional 
collaborative efforts reported by the community colleges and workforce 
officials that we visited included sharing data; conducting joint 
strategic planning; or partnering with one-stops on workforce 
activities, such as the cross-training of one-stop staff. 

Community college and workforce officials cited state funding and 
leadership as two factors that help integration between community 
colleges and the workforce system, but they also identified challenges 
with WIA performance system measures and WIA funding as impediments to 
their efforts. Officials we interviewed almost universally cited state 
funding as a factor that facilitates the workforce development 
activities of community colleges. Some states that we visited, such as 
New Jersey and Iowa, created state programs that provided community 
colleges with additional pools of money for training. In New Jersey, 
these programs were financed with a dedicated state payroll tax for 
workforce development, paid by both employers and workers; while in 
Iowa, funding for these programs was raised through bonds. Leadership 
by governors, college presidents, the WIB chairs, state agency staff, 
and one-stop management in bringing together community colleges and 
other workforce entities to partner on workforce development was also 
cited by many of our states and schools as important to supporting 
community college workforce efforts, including integration with the one-
stop system. Some college and workforce officials stated that the WIA 
performance system measures and WIA funding issues created impediments 
to their workforce efforts. Specifically, these officials commented 
that some of the measures for the Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth 
programs, such as earnings and job retention, created disincentives to 
serve more disadvantaged clients because of the difficulty in obtaining 
employment for these population groups. In serving them, the local 
workforce area and, ultimately, the state may risk not meeting their 
performance levels established by Labor and may incur financial 
penalties. In a 2004 report, GAO recommended that Labor develop a 
systematic adjustment model to apply to all states that could account 
for different populations or economic conditions when establishing 
states' performance measures. Labor has not taken action on this 
recommendation. However, Labor officials told us that states may use 
their own adjustment models, if they prefer, when negotiating their 

next year's performance measures, and that the department has worked to 
ensure consistency in the negotiation process. Some community college 
and workforce officials also noted that WIA's funding formula has 
resulted in large funding fluctuations from year to year, thus making 
program planning difficult. GAO's past work has identified these and 
other issues related to the current funding formulas and outlined 
adjustments to the formulas for consideration by Congress when WIA is 
reauthorized. Other barriers noted by colleges and workforce officials 
included the lack of coordination between Education and Labor 
concerning the performance measures for their respective workforce 
programs; the lack of funding under WIA for the one-stop 
infrastructure, such as building and maintenance costs; and an overall 
decline in WIA funding in recent years. 

While Labor and Education have undertaken various activities that 
focused on building linkages between community colleges and the 
workforce, it is uncertain whether these efforts will be successful or 
will encourage more colleges to build linkages with the one-stop 
system. Labor's WIRED, High Growth, and Community Based grants were 
developed to make the workforce system more market-driven by 
encouraging collaboration between businesses and key workforce 
partners, including community colleges. However, as we discussed in our 
May 2008 report about Labor's grant process, Labor will need to take 
steps to ensure that its evaluations of these grants more fully measure 
the grants' effectiveness. In addition, Labor and Education jointly 
funded and organized a $1.5 million initiative in 2006, called the 
Strategic Partnerships for a Competitive Workforce Initiative, to help 
build linkages between community colleges and the workforce system. The 
initiative supported teams of local workforce organizations--including 
community colleges that had received Community Based grants--to develop 
strategic plans for implementing career pathways, which is an approach 
that combines education with work to help workers move progressively to 
higher-skilled positions. Labor and Education officials stated that 
they viewed the initiative as a success based on informal feedback 
received from the participants, although the agencies are not planning 
future joint initiatives due to other competing priorities. The 
agencies did not conduct an evaluation of the initiative, but Labor and 
Education plan to issue a report in 2008 that will discuss the 
successes and challenges experienced by the participants. 

Background: 

According to the American Association of Community Colleges, the nation 
has about 1,200 community colleges--accredited institutions that 
primarily offer the associate, or 2-year degree, as the highest degree. 
Community colleges offer a wide array of educational programs that 
encompass traditional academic coursework as well as career and 
technical training. (See table 1.) In addition, career and technical 
education programs are offered on both a for-credit basis and a 
noncredit basis. An advantage of noncredit courses is that colleges can 
add or delete them more quickly than for-credit courses, thereby 
allowing colleges to respond to local training needs in a more 
responsive way. 

Table 1: Types of Educational Programs Offered by Community Colleges: 

Type of program: Academic degree or transfer; 
Description: Courses leading to an Associate of Arts, Associate of 
Science, or other academic degree, or courses eligible for transfer 
credit to an institution that offers baccalaureate degrees. 

Type of program: Career and technical education (also known as 
workforce or occupational training); 
Description: Courses leading to an Associate of Applied Science or 
other occupationally related degree, certificate, license, diploma, or 
other credential. May or may not involve transferable credit. Examples 
include a dental assistant certificate and a noncredit certified 
nursing assistant program. 

Type of program: Below college-level academic (also known as 
developmental or remedial education); 
Description: Courses, including mathematics, English, and reading, that 
are required to be taken by students who lack college-level proficiency 
in those subjects before they can be accepted in a college-level 
program. 

Type of program: Basic skills; 
Description: Other courses, including Adult Basic Education, English as 
a Second Language, and those courses preparing students for the General 
Educational Development examination. 

Source: GAO, Public Community Colleges and Technical Schools: Most 
Schools Use Both Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce 
Development, GAO-05-4 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 18, 2004). 

[End of table] 

Community colleges also serve a diverse student body. With generally 
low tuition and unrestrictive admissions policies that emphasize open 
enrollment, these colleges serve individuals ranging from those earning 
their first educational credential to midcareer professionals seeking 
to upgrade their skills or reenter the workforce. In general, community 
college students are more likely to be from a minority group, older, 
and socioeconomically disadvantaged than those at 4-year baccalaureate 
institutions. They also are more likely to be enrolled in career and 
technical education programs--about half of all community college 
students are enrolled in these programs--and attending less than full 
time, in part, because some of these students are already 
employed.[Footnote 3] 

While community colleges serve individuals' education and training 
needs, they also work directly with employers to provide training to 
their employees under a contract. Such training can be short term or it 
can lead to a credential. 

Workforce Investment Act: 

While individuals and companies access workforce education and training 
programs that are available at community colleges on their own, the 
federal government provides employment and training services that the 
public and employers may also use. In 1998, WIA created a new, 
comprehensive workforce investment system designed to change the way 
that federally funded employment and training services were 
delivered.[Footnote 4] The act's goal was to unify a fragmented 
employment and training system to better serve both job seekers and 
employers. WIA replaced the Job Training Partnership Act with three new 
programs--Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth--and required that these 
and other employment and training programs be delivered through a 
single service system, known as the one-stop system. Sixteen categories 
of programs funded through 4 separate agencies--deemed mandatory 
partners--must provide services through this system.[Footnote 5] (See 
table 2.) 

Table 2: WIA Mandatory Programs and Related Federal Agencies: 

Federal agency: Department of Labor; 
Mandatory program: WIA Adult; 
WIA Dislocated Worker; 
WIA Youth; 
Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser); 
Trade adjustment assistance programs; 
Veterans' employment and training programs; 
Unemployment Insurance; 
Job Corps; 
Senior Community Service Employment Program; 
Employment and training for migrant and seasonal farm workers; 
Employment and training for Native Americans. 

Federal agency: Department of Education; 
Mandatory program: Vocational Rehabilitation Program; 
Mandatory program: Adult Education and Literacy; 
Mandatory program: Vocational Education (Perkins Act). 

Federal agency: Department of Health and Human Services; 
Mandatory program: Community Services Block Grant. 

Federal agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); 
Mandatory program: HUD-administered employment and training. 

Source: GAO, Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and 
Performance Measures for Major Programs, GAO-03-589 (Washington, D.C.: 
Apr. 18, 2003); and the Department of Labor. 

Note: Although WIA required 17 programs to participate in the one-stop 
system, the Welfare-to-Work Program no longer exists, reducing the 
total to 16 mandatory programs. 

[End of table] 

Under WIA, almost $27 billion in grants have been provided to states 
for Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs since fiscal year 
2000, as shown in figure 1. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2007, 
however, WIA funding declined by about 12 percent. 

Figure 1: WIA Funding for Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth Programs, 
Fiscal Years 2000 to 2007: 

This figure is a versicle bar graph showing WIA funding for adult, 
dislocated worker, and youth programs, fiscal years 2000 to 2007. The X 
axis represents the fiscal year, and the Y axis represents the fiscal 
amount to states (in billions). 

Fiscal year: "2000"; 
Fiscal amount to states (in billions): 3.53. 

Fiscal year: "2001"; 
Fiscal amount to states (in billions): 3.51. 

Fiscal year: "2002"; 
Fiscal amount to states (in billions): 3.44. 

Fiscal year: "2003"; 
Fiscal amount to states (in billions): 3.34. 

Fiscal year: "2004"; 
Fiscal amount to states (in billions): 3.34. 

Fiscal year: "2005"; 
Fiscal amount to states (in billions): 3.23. 

Fiscal year: "2006"; 
Fiscal amount to states (in billions): 3.27. 

Fiscal year: "2007"; 
Fiscal amount to states (in billions): 3.10. 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Data represent final amounts after rescissions and supplemental 
appropriations. Data for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 are estimated. 

[End of figure] 

The amount of money that is allocated to the states and local workforce 
areas depends on a specific formula that takes into account certain 
factors, such as local unemployment and the number of low-income 
individuals in the local population. In addition, WIA also allows 
discretionary funds to be set aside at the federal and state 
levels.[Footnote 6] At the state level, this funding can be used to 
help dislocated workers--workers affected by layoffs and plant 
closings--through rapid response services that provide information 
about financial and educational options and other statewide activities. 

WIA provides for state and local WIBs to govern the WIA one-stop 
system. A state WIB is responsible for developing statewide policies 
and overseeing various activities carried out by the one-stop system. 
Local WIBs, in turn, are responsible for developing local workforce 
policies and overseeing the operations of the one-stop centers in their 
designated workforce area. A variety of state and local agencies, as 
well as community colleges, can be selected by the local board to 
assume responsibility for the administrative and financial operation of 
the one-stop center. 

WIA allows flexibility in the way that the mandatory partners provide 
services through the one-stop system, allowing colocation, whereby 
staff from different programs are physically located at the same 
location; electronic linkages; or referrals. While WIA requires these 
mandatory partners to provide services through the one-stop system, it 
does not provide additional funds to operate one-stop centers and 
support one-stop partnerships. Mandatory partners are expected to share 
the costs of developing and operating one-stop centers. In addition to 
mandatory partners, local WIBs have the flexibility to include other 
programs in the one-stop system, including community colleges, to 
better meet specific state and local workforce development needs. 

WIA and Community Colleges: 

Community colleges can play important roles in the federal workforce 
programs under WIA. One potential role is to serve on the state and 
local WIBs responsible for the WIA system. Governors and the chief 
local officials select the representatives to their respective boards 
following the membership criteria prescribed by WIA and its 
implementing regulations. While WIA specifies that membership of the 
WIBs is to include representatives of various types of entities, the 
regulations make clear that community college representatives should be 
given special consideration for membership. Another possible role for 
community colleges is to become a one-stop operator. Community colleges 
may apply to a WIB to become the operator of the one-stop center, 
overseeing its daily operation and services. In addition, as a key 
provider of both education and career and technical training programs 
in their communities, community colleges can meet the education and 
training needs of one-stop clients by working closely with their local 
one-stop centers to understand these needs and meeting WIA requirements 
to become eligible training providers.[Footnote 7] For example, 
community college staff at the one-stop can provide information on the 
variety of classes available at the college, such as General 
Equivalency Diploma (GED), English as a Second Language (ESL), or adult 
basic education classes; conduct formal screenings or assessments of 
clients to determine literacy levels; or determine eligibility for 
financial aid options through the college. Individuals who are found 
eligible for training under WIA receive vouchers--called Individual 
Training Accounts (ITA)--to pay for training. ITAs can be used at the 
training provider of their choice, which can include community 
colleges.[Footnote 8] 

Department of Education and Community Colleges: 

While community colleges are primarily state-funded, they may also 
receive federal funding from the Department of Education. Through funds 
provided under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and the Carl 
D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins 
Act),[Footnote 9] states and community colleges can develop a variety 
of courses or programs that assist students, including one-stop 
clients, with their education and training programs.[Footnote 10] 

One program funded through the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act 
is the Adult Education Basic Grants to States program. Funds from this 
program help community colleges provide adult education, English 
literacy, GED preparation, and other basic skills. Approximately $564 
million was provided in fiscal year 2007 to support 3,200 programs 
delivering instruction through public schools, community colleges, 
libraries, and community-based organizations. Through the Perkins Act, 
Education provides grants to states to support academic, vocational, 
and technical education in high schools, community colleges, and 
regional technical centers. Approximately $1.1 billion in Perkins Act 
funding was distributed in fiscal year 2007. The Perkins Act authorizes 
grants to develop Tech Prep programs--a sequenced course of study in a 
technical field that begins in high school, extends through 2 years of 
postsecondary occupational education, and culminates in an associate 
degree or certificate. Funded at $105 million in fiscal year 2007, the 
Tech Prep program provides assistance to states to provide career and 
technical education leading to an associate degree or a 2-year 
certificate and strengthens pathways for students between secondary and 
postsecondary schools. 

In addition, Education funds student grant and loan programs under 
Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, to 
individuals pursuing higher education. One example of such programs is 
the Pell Grant for low-income students. In fiscal year 2007, Education 
awarded approximately $14 billion in Pell Grants to about 5 million 
recipients. However, while one-stops and community colleges can help 
qualifying low-income students apply for Pell Grants or other types of 
financial aid funded by Education, students enrolled in noncredit 
education programs are usually not eligible for federal financial aid. 

Community Colleges Tailor Career and Technical Training Courses to Meet 
the Workforce Development Needs of Businesses, Workers, and Students: 

To meet businesses' current and future workforce needs, the community 
colleges that we visited keep their career and technical education 
programs up to date through a variety of data collection and outreach 
efforts. They also provide training directly to local employers through 
contract or customized training programs; work with small businesses; 
and offer programs to help specific groups of students and workers, 
such as those receiving TANF. 

Labor Market Analyses, Advisory Committees, and Skill Panels Are Some 
Ways That Community Colleges Stay Apprised of Workforce Training Needs: 

To help ensure that their programs are demand-driven, the community 
colleges that we visited use a variety of methods to continually gather 
and analyze labor market information and conditions. Community colleges 
in all six states that we visited cited labor market analysis as an 
important way to identify local needs and trends. In Iowa, for example, 
a state agency has produced refined analyses of the education levels 
and training needs of manufacturing workers in a particular local area 
and shares these analyses with various workforce entities, including 
community colleges. In Oregon and Washington, labor market data are 
provided by state analysts who work in the field, where they can 
provide timely, customized analyses--such as projected growth 
occupations over a specific time period--in response to requests from 
community colleges and others. However, in some instances, like 
Kirkwood Community College in Iowa, schools develop their own labor 
market analysis. Officials from Wake Tech Community College in North 
Carolina told us that they worked with 13 local economic development 
agencies to collect labor market data to identify the region's growth 
occupations for which the college could potentially develop and provide 
training.[Footnote 11] 

Many of the community colleges that we visited relied on feedback from 
employers, which provided the feedback through committees internal or 
external to the colleges to help them ensure that their programs 
reflect current workforce trends and provide training that will meet 
specific job competencies. Advisory committees, which are internal to 
each college, comprise local business men and women who meet 
periodically to give input to the colleges about their career and 
technical education programs. Kirkwood Community College, for example, 
has 80 advisory committees that encompass areas such as health, 
business, industrial technology, and transportation and safety. 
According to a Kirkwood official, about 1,000 local business leaders 
participate in Kirkwood's advisory committees. Similar to advisory 
committees are external committees--involving community colleges, 
business, and others--that focus on broad sectors, rather than 
individual occupations, and that were also used in at least two of the 
states that we visited. In Washington, for example, these committees 
are known as "skill panels" and focus on the needs of a particular 
sector by bringing together representatives of employers, labor, and 
training providers in that sector to discuss their workforce needs. 
Since 2000, for example, Washington has used skill panels to examine 
training needs in 20 different industrial clusters, including health 
care, manufacturing, food processing, biotechnology, homeland security, 
information technology, and construction. In Michigan, these 
collaborative groups are called "regional skills alliances," and they 
involve employers, community colleges, one-stops, and other workforce 
entities. 

Outreach approaches to community and business organizations or their 
representatives were other methods used by the community colleges that 
we visited to keep their programs aligned with business needs. These 
approaches included serving on the boards of local employers' 
associations, community organizations, and hospitals; seeking business 
input for formal periodic program reviews; surveying local businesses; 
using college staff as "account developers" to interact directly with 
local businesses; and obtaining information through the local one- 
stop's business liaison. 

In addition to gathering information about local labor market trends to 
maintain their existing programs, community colleges also use this 
information to create new programs and, in some cases, to discontinue 
programs that no longer meet local needs. Several of the community 
colleges that we visited had recently created new programs--for 
example, polysomnography (sleep technician) and mechatronics (a field 
combining skills from mechanics, hydraulics, and pneumatics)--based on 
information gathered through a variety of sources about local business 
needs. An official from Pitt Community College in North Carolina stated 
that the college develops two to three new programs each year, 
following a survey of selected industries in the area and 
identification of programs at other community colleges. In other 
instances, Pitt responded to insufficient local demand by discontinuing 
its heavy machinery program and by folding a separate surveying program 
into its construction and engineering programs. 

Community Colleges Work Directly with Businesses through Contract 
Training and Small Business Centers: 

Through contract training, also known as customized training, community 
colleges can respond quickly to an individual employer's training needs 
by developing either a specific training course or an entire training 
plan for the company's staff. In 2004, GAO conducted a survey of 
community colleges and reported that, of the colleges responding to our 
survey, more than three quarters offered contract training to more than 
1 million trainees, or a median of 982 trainees per school[Footnote 
12]. The community colleges that we visited varied widely in both the 
number of contract trainings they provided and the number of businesses 
with which they worked: in the 2006-2007 year, the number of contract 
training courses ranged from 21 to 3,691, and the number of businesses 
the colleges served ranged from 5 to 15[Footnote 13]5. The amount of 
money that these colleges received from contract training was small-- 
typically less than 5 percent of the college's total revenue--but these 
types of arrangements were offered to provide a full complement of 
training services to businesses. 

In some states, community colleges have taken steps to make it easier 
for businesses to access contract training at community colleges. For 
example, in Iowa, community colleges have established the One Source 
initiative. The initiative provides a single point of entry into 
community colleges' contract training programs for employers with 
multiple locations as well as for employers based out of state with 
multiple plants in Iowa. To develop the initiative, the community 
colleges agreed that they would use a common pricing structure, and 
that the community college or colleges closest to the employer would 
deliver the training. New Jersey has a similar approach in which the 
community colleges have formed a statewide consortium that works with 
the state's largest employer association to make community college 
training available to all businesses statewide, according to consortium 
officials. Now in its first year of operation, the project has 
committed to provide 295 courses in areas such as basic communication 
and computer skills for employers statewide. As another example, to 
enhance its capabilities to provide training to businesses, Lansing 
Community College in Michigan has joined the Global Corporate College, 
in addition to other community colleges nationwide. The Global 
Corporate College creates a system for individual community colleges to 
leverage their resources by allowing members to share intellectual 
property, faculty, and curriculum, thus enabling a college to provide 
training to a particular company that, without these additional 
resources, it might not be able to provide. 

Contract training opportunities may also come to community colleges by 
way of the WIA one-stop system. One-stops establish their own 
relationships with employers to successfully connect job seekers with 
available employment. To meet employer workforce needs, the one-stops 
offer an array of services, including customized training for a 
specific employer, that may be provided by one-stop staff or by other 
training providers, such as community colleges.[Footnote 14] 

In several of the states that we visited, officials told us that small 
businesses play an important role as local employers, and community 
colleges work with them in several ways. For example, several of the 
colleges that we visited maintain small business centers within the 
college.[Footnote 15] In some cases, such as at Linn-Benton Community 
College in Oregon, the centers provided training to small businesses on 
various topics, such as how to develop a financial plan or a business 
plan. Also, the colleges provide contract training for the workers of 
small businesses, similar to their other contract training activities. 
In addition, some community colleges run small business incubators, by 
providing temporary space for new businesses to operate. For example, 
North Carolina's Lenoir Community College has a small business 
incubator that helped support an electrical contractor and a special- 
occasion bakery, according to officials. Furthermore, North Iowa Area 
Community College, which houses one of five entrepreneurial centers in 
the state that provides support to small businesses, created a health 
insurance program to help start-up businesses reduce their health 
insurance costs. Created through public-private collaboration, the 
program provides funding for health insurance to qualified 
entrepreneurs in the region for up to their first 3 years in business. 

Community Colleges Design Career and Technical Training to Help 
Specific Groups of Students and Workers: 

Students may arrive at community colleges ill-equipped to enroll in 
college-level career and technical classes for many reasons, such as 
low literacy skills or language barriers. One way that the community 
colleges that we visited enhance the employability of low-skilled 
adults in the labor market and prepare them for higher-level classes is 
through providing adult basic education classes and other types of 
support. Some of the colleges that we visited provided adult basic 
education at the one-stop. In North Carolina and Iowa, community 
colleges administer basic skills education, such as adult literacy, 
ESL, and GED preparation, in contrast to other states where multiple 
agencies may share responsibility for these programs. In addition to 
basic education classes, some community colleges may also provide "soft 
skills" training--the nontechnical skills and traits that workers need 
to function in a job, such as oral communication skills, work ethic, 
and teamwork. For example, Lenoir Community College in North Carolina 
pioneered and still operates a soft-skills program that was 
subsequently adopted statewide. Prompted by research that shows a 
significant portion of low-level adult readers have a learning 
disability, Michigan's Oakland Community College staff screens one-stop 
clients for some types of learning disabilities and helps them to 
develop coping strategies. 

Another way that community colleges address both the needs of low- 
skilled adults and of businesses is by assessing and certifying adults' 
basic skills in three areas: applied math, reading, and information 
retrieval. Adults who prove their proficiency in these skills receive a 
certificate, known as the Career Readiness Certificate. According to 
North Carolina officials, since the state launched its program in 2006, 
about 9,200 certificates have been issued, and employers' responses 
have been favorable. These officials believe that businesses are more 
confident about the skill levels of those they hire and that they save 
money by hiring individuals with the right skills "the first time," and 
that community colleges view the program as another service they can 
offer to businesses. As of June 2007, 14 states had Career Readiness 
Certificate programs, and another 17 states were developing such 
programs or had them available locally. 

Many of the community colleges that we visited cited a number of 
examples of their work with career pathways, which is an approach that 
improves low-skilled adults' access to career and technical education 
programs and is designed to improve their success in completing these 
programs. A career pathway involves providing education, training, and 
support services to workers to help them move to progressively higher- 
skilled positions in a specific industry or occupational sector. 
Oregon, for example, has provided funding to implement its career 
pathway model statewide. Growing from an initiative that started at 
Portland and Mount Hood Community Colleges to help low-income students 
obtain credentials for higher-wage jobs, Oregon's model will provide 
for program staff at the state level and for local coordinators at each 
of the state's 17 community colleges; implementation is expected to be 
complete by late 2008. In New Jersey, Camden County College worked with 
the local one-stop and the WIB to develop career ladders for 
transportation workers and food service aides in two Camden hospitals, 
which are major local employers. According to officials, the career 
ladders helped them meet a commitment to hire local residents from 
Camden, a city with a reported high-school dropout rate of 52 percent 
and with one of the highest poverty rates in the country. 

Building on the career-ladder model, Washington has combined basic 
skills and career and technical training--in addition to supportive 
services such as child care--in a program known as Integrated Basic 
Education and Skills Training (I-BEST). By providing basic skills and 
occupation-specific educators in every class and incorporating career 
pathways, I-BEST addresses individuals' needs for both types of 
training. All seven of the community and technical colleges that we 
visited in Washington had I-BEST programs, and the federal Department 
of Health and Human Services has identified I-BEST as a promising 
program for transitioning TANF parents to work. 

Community colleges also provide training or course work to high-school 
students preparing to enter the workforce or for academic transfer. 
Some states, such as Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, have 
dual-enrollment programs that allow high-school students to earn 
community college credit.[Footnote 16] Furthermore, several community 
college officials, such as those we met with in Washington, told us 
their colleges participate in Education's Tech Prep program, which 
provides funding to states to build linkages between secondary and 
postsecondary schools. In addition, community college officials in 
several states told us that their colleges participate in other events 
to inform high-school students about their career and technical 
education programs, such as career fairs and occupational summer camps. 

Community colleges are important training providers for one-stop 
clients who receive training through WIA-funded ITAs. From our survey 
of one-stop centers, we estimated that 40 percent of the one-stop adult 
clients who were enrolled in training by the one-stop between July 2006 
and June 2007 selected a community college as their training provider. 
During the 2006-2007 year, the number of ITAs used at the community 
colleges that we visited ranged from 34 to 381, and their value 
averaged between $366 and $4,566.[Footnote 17] The revenue that these 
colleges received from ITAs was small compared with their total tuition 
and contract training revenue, representing no more than 4 percent of 
the total revenue from those sources.[Footnote 18] 

Community Colleges Integrate with the One-Stop System in Many Ways, 
Including Operating and Colocating with One-Stops and Participating on 
WIBs: 

The community colleges that we visited integrate with their one-stop 
centers through various activities. Examples of these activities 
include operating the one-stop; participating on the local WIBs; or 
partnering with the one-stop on workforce activities, such as strategic 
planning or data sharing. However, the extent to which community 
colleges nationwide conduct some of these activities varied. 

Some Colleges Operate or Colocate Staff at One-Stops and Participate on 
WIBs: 

Officials at many of the colleges that we visited told us that one way 
they integrate with the one-stop system is by becoming the operator for 
the center.[Footnote 19] An entity that operates a one-stop typically 
coordinates the day-to-day operation of the center; some of the 
colleges that we visited were also the fiscal agent that receives WIA 
funding to operate some of the programs accessible through the one- 
stop. Community college officials explained that the benefits of this 
arrangement were cost efficiencies, cost savings, or access to other 
funding opportunities. The one-stop in Mason City, Iowa, for example, 
is operated by the North Iowa Area Community College, where the one- 
stop manager is an employee of the college. As a result, the college 
pays half of the manager's salary. In addition, the college pays part 
of the salaries for the Economic Development and Career Center 
directors, who are also part of the management team for the one-stop. 
We found similar arrangements in several of the colleges that we 
visited. Officials at Kirkwood Community College in Iowa, which 
operates the Cedar Rapids one-stop, stated that their positions at both 
the college and the one-stop offer a vantage point for developing 
funding proposals through the college that benefit both entities. For 
example, Kirkwood obtained funding to help students pay for continuing 
education classes for which they could not receive financial aid. WIA 
clients taking classes at Kirkwood are also eligible for this 
assistance, allowing them to use their ITAs for other types of classes. 

According to several community college and workforce officials at the 
sites that we visited, colocation of community college staff at the one-
stop was another way that the college was integrated with the one- stop 
system. Some officials with whom we spoke noted that colocation at the 
one-stop helps to improve communication among the various agency 
programs, improves the delivery of services to the client, or excises 
duplication. College and workforce officials at Linn-Benton Community 
College in Oregon commented that colocation is particularly important 
in rural areas because these areas tend to be resource poor and have 
limited mass transportation. These officials stated that locating 
workforce programs and support services in one place helped clients 
obtain services from agencies that typically would be spread throughout 
the community. A Passaic County Community College official in New 
Jersey stated that prior to the county's colocation effort, community 
college officials did not know about the services and tools available 
to clients that were provided by agencies now colocated at the one-stop 
center.[Footnote 20] As a result of colocating, the college is sending 
students to some of these organizations for services that the college 
had previously provided, such as rï¿½sumï¿½ writing. Based on our survey, 
we estimated that about 11 percent of the one-stops are operated solely 
or jointly by a community college, while 34 percent of the one-stops 
have community college staff colocated at the one-stop center. 

Officials at many of the sites that we visited reported that community 
college officials sit on either the local or state WIBs, or both. 
Nationwide, we estimated that 49 percent of the local WIBs have 
community college presidents represented on their board, 26 percent 
have vice presidents, 32 percent have deans, and 39 percent have other 
community college staff.[Footnote 21] While WIA requires that 
representatives from an education agency sit on the local WIB, it does 
not stipulate that the representative be from a community college, 
although the implementing regulations require that they be given 
special consideration. In Iowa, however, state law requires that 
community colleges sit on the local WIBs. An Iowa college official 
explained that having the community colleges participate on the WIB 
benefits the workforce system, because not only do the colleges provide 
leadership and program capability, but they are at "ground zero," where 
service delivery occurs. 

Community Colleges Are Integrated with One-Stops through Many Different 
Workforce Activities: 

In pursuing their workforce missions, our selected community colleges 
collaborated on a broad array of other joint tasks and activities with 
their one-stops and other workforce partners, in addition to operating 
and colocating at the one stop or participating on the WIB. Examples of 
these activities included building a new one-stop facility, producing 
data analysis, conducting strategic planning, and cross-training one- 
stop staff on their organization's respective program services. 
Highlights of some of these examples include the following: 

* Building a one-stop together: Linn-Benton, Portland, and Passaic 
County Community Colleges worked with their one-stop and state and 
local partners to design and build the one-stop facility. In Linn- 
Benton, many partners were involved in getting the one-stop built, but 
the college owned the land on which the one-stop is located and raised 
the construction money by selling bonds. Today, the college owns the 
facility, and the partners lease the space that they occupy. 

* Sharing data: All of the states that we visited develop labor market 
information, which is shared with key workforce partners, including the 
community colleges. In some cases, workforce partners may also request 
special analyses or additional data that are more specific to their 
communities. In the states that we visited, these data are developed 
and provided by the state agency responsible for overseeing labor or 
employment service programs. Although in Iowa, for example, the North 
Iowa Area Community College pays for a refined analysis and shares it 
with the one-stop and others. 

* Strategic planning: Some of the community colleges that we visited 
conduct strategic planning efforts on workforce development with other 
workforce system agencies or organizations. For example, Oakland 
Community College in Michigan, the economic development agency, and the 
one-stop with funding from a business sponsor develop and write an 
annual report on the economic outlook for the county. A Michigan 
college official pointed to Michigan's regional skills alliances as 
vehicles for continued strategic planning by workforce partners in a 
particular business sector. 

* Cross-training of staff: Some of the community college officials that 
we visited talked about the importance of ensuring that one-stop staff 
understand the basics about each agency's programs and services, 
including the colleges. Some officials referred to this as the "no 
wrong door" approach, meaning that a one-stop client should be able to 
approach anyone at the center and get help or be directed to the right 
person. To accomplish this, they conduct cross-training. For example, 
one-stop staff at the center run by Portland Community College spent 
about 6 to 12 months training partner staff on everyone else's programs 
before the facility officially opened. Also, Linn-Benton Community 
College in Oregon wrote a resource directory outlining all of the 
programs offered by the various agencies and conducted team-building 
exercises for the staff using the resource directory. 

State Funding and Leadership Help Community Colleges' Workforce 
Efforts, While WIA Performance System Measures and WIA Funding Issues 
Present Challenges: 

State funding and leadership are some of the factors that community 
colleges and other workforce officials identified as supporting their 
workforce efforts and integration with one-stops. However, these 
officials also pointed to challenges with the WIA performance system 
measures and issues related to WIA funding. 

State Funding and Leadership Are Key to Supporting Workforce 
Development: 

Some community college and workforce officials with whom we spoke cited 
additional training funds provided by their states as an important 
factor to supporting community colleges' workforce development efforts. 
One example of this support is New Jersey's Workforce Development 
Program, which makes grants available on a competitive basis to 
businesses or business consortia partnering with an educational 
institution, such as a community college. The grants fund incumbent 
worker training and are financed through a dedicated state payroll tax 
for workforce development, paid by both employers and workers. The 
employers receiving the grants provide a 50 percent match. In Iowa, 
community colleges are permitted to sell bonds to raise funds for 
incumbent worker training in new or expanding companies. Michigan is 
also considering Iowa's approach as a way to help finance workforce 
training. In Oregon, the governor created the Employment Workforce 
Training Fund, which is paid for through WIA discretionary monies, to 
help communities pay for incumbent worker training. 

Six of the 20 community colleges that we visited were participating in 
a WIRED, High Growth, or Community Based grant. Some officials noted 
that the additional federal funding provided through these grants was 
important in launching projects or sustaining them. In total, more than 
$3 million dollars in the 2006-2007 year were awarded to the schools 
through one or more of these Department of Labor grants. 

Leadership by individuals at all levels of the workforce system--state 
officials, WIBs, one-stops, and colleges--was cited by several 
workforce and community college officials at the sites that we visited 
as a factor facilitating integration of colleges into the workforce 
system. In New Jersey and Michigan, some officials commented that 
leadership came from their governors in that they placed a priority on 
workforce and economic development in their respective states and 
viewed community colleges as key partners in workforce training. New 
Jersey's governor accomplished this, in part, by specifically tasking 
the Commissioners of Higher Education and the Department of Labor and 
Workforce Development with bringing together community colleges and the 
workforce system in implementing his plan for economic growth in the 
state. Under Michigan's governor, the state developed a new initiative 
called "No Worker Left Behind" in which the state provides 2 years of 
free tuition at a community college for workers who are training for 
certificates or degrees in high-demand occupations. Some Oregon state 
officials pointed to the governor's Workforce Policy Cabinet as an 
important mechanism for integration. Through the cabinet, established 
in 1991, the heads of agencies representing workforce programs or 
programs that are critical to workforce development meet regularly to 
discuss issues and make decisions. 

WIA Performance System Measures and Funding Issues Were Cited as 
Challenges: 

Community college and other workforce officials at our selected sites 
outlined some challenges in undertaking their various workforce 
initiatives and joint efforts. These challenges included barriers 
arising from meeting WIA performance system measures, the volatility 
created by the WIA funding formula, and the decline in WIA funding 
overall. 

Some officials told us that helping certain clients connect to the 
workforce through the one-stop system is difficult due, in part, to 
disincentives created by the WIA performance system measures. For 
example, WIA holds state and local workforce areas accountable for 
meeting performance levels in their Adult, Dislocated Workers, and 
Youth programs on measures such as job placement, retention, and 
earnings. States may receive incentive funds or suffer financial 
sanctions, depending on whether they meet these levels. But youth or 
TANF clients, for example, typically have more difficulty in obtaining 
jobs, and generally retain them for shorter periods of time than other 
types of clients, partly as a result of transportation, child care, or 
substance abuse issues. These job seekers may also require more- 
intensive services and case management from the one-stop staff before 
they are ready to search for a job. In the case of older workers, they 
generally are looking for part-time work and accept jobs at wages that 
are lower than what they were previously making. As a result, WIA 
performance measures can create incentives for one-stops to offer 
services first to clients who are easier to serve and more likely to be 
successful in obtaining and retaining a job. 

GAO reported in 2004 and 2007 that many state and local officials did 
not think the negotiation process with Labor adequately considered 
factors that could affect the performance level of the state. We 
recommended that Labor develop a systematic model for all states to use 
that could take into account the type of population served or the 
economic conditions of the state.[Footnote 22] As we outlined in those 
reports, a model of this type could help the process set more uniform 
goals and provide a tool to states and local areas that do not have the 
resources to develop their own models. To date, Labor has not 
implemented this recommendation. Labor officials reported to us that 
they allow states to use their own model in negotiating their 
performance levels, which would allow states to take into account 
economic conditions, populations served, and other factors relevant to 
meeting the levels. In addition, these officials stated that Labor 
works to ensure consistency in the negotiation process for establishing 
state performance levels between the department's regional offices, 
which conduct the negotiations, and the states, through guidance to the 
regions as well as discussions between the Assistant Secretary and 
Labor's regional office administrators. 

Some community college and workforce officials also noted that 
Education and Labor have not aligned their performance measures across 
their respective workforce programs. One workforce official explained 
that this forces local-level staff to spend time trying to align and 
bridge different reporting requirements and policies, instead of 
working with clients. The Office of Management and Budget has 
recommended that common measures be adopted by related workforce 
programs across agencies. Labor has adopted and implemented these 
common measures within some of their workforce programs. While 
Education has adopted these measures, Education officials reported to 
us that they have not fully implemented all aspects of the measures due 
to differences between Education and Labor's workforce programs 
concerning program definitions, collection timelines, and populations 
to be measured. However, Education is continuing to work on resolving 
these issues. 

Other WIA funding issues were also noted by some community college and 
workforce officials as barriers to workforce efforts and integration 
between colleges and one-stops. One issue they cited was the 
fluctuations in funding from year to year caused by some of the WIA 
allocation formulas. In some of the sites that we visited, officials 
stated that WIA funding was reduced by 40 percent from the previous 
year. GAO addressed this issue in two reports in 2003 and outlined 
options for Congress to consider when reauthorizing WIA that could help 
reduce the volatility in some of the WIA allocation formulas.[Footnote 
23] However, Congress has not yet passed legislation that would 
reauthorize WIA. Other officials stated that the lack of infrastructure 
funding for WIA has created problems with integration, particularly 
when organizations try to obtain or renovate a building to provide 
adequate space so that partners can colocate. Some college and 
workforce officials we interviewed cited a decline in WIA funding 
overall as a problem because it creates difficulties in planning and 
serving clients. Oregon state officials told us that they closed 8 
employment service offices and laid off 80 staff because of declining 
funding, causing concerns about client access to services, particularly 
in rural parts of the state. 

Labor and Education Have Focused on Community Colleges' Workforce 
Development Efforts through Targeted Grant Programs and a Strategic 
Partnerships Initiative, but Their Impact Is Not Fully Known: 

In addition to other activities, Education and Labor have undertaken 
and supported two key initiatives that focus on building linkages 
between community colleges and the workforce system: the WIRED, 
Community Based, and High Growth grants and the Strategic Partnerships 
for a Competitive Workforce Initiative, a joint initiative with 
Education. It is unclear whether these initiatives will be successful 
in building such linkages or encouraging more community colleges to 
focus on workforce development, due to the agencies' inability to 
measure the full impact of these collaborative efforts. 

Since 2001, Labor has awarded about $900 million through WIRED, 
Community Based, and High Growth grants to promote a more market-driven 
workforce system by increasing collaboration among businesses, 
community colleges, and other key workforce development partners. 
Unlike the WIRED and High Growth grants--which go to governors or a 
broad range of public and private organizations, respectively--the 
Community Based awards are primarily targeted to community colleges to 
build their capacity to provide skilled workers for high-growth 
industries and occupations. In 2006, Labor awarded $125 million in 
Community Based grants to community colleges. However, in our May 2008 
report about Labor's grant process, we stated that Labor will be 
challenged to assess the impact of these grants because it did not plan 
well from the outset to identify performance goals and collect data 
comparable to those collected from other programs. As a result, we 
recommended that the department take the appropriate steps to ensure 
that it can fully evaluate the grants' impact.[Footnote 24] 

In addition, Labor and Education jointly funded and organized a $1.5 
million initiative--the Strategic Partnerships for a Competitive 
Workforce--to help build linkages between community colleges and the 
workforce system. The initiative involved 32 teams of local workforce 
organizations selected from Community Based grantees and focused on 
building career pathways. In doing so, teams were tasked with 
developing a strategic plan for implementing an education and training 
approach that would foster partnerships and coordination within the 
community between kindergarten and 12TH grade, vocational schools, 
colleges and universities, community-based organizations, and 
employers. Under the Strategic Partnerships initiative, Labor and 
Education held four training institutes that covered topics related to 
building career pathways in industries, including health care and 
advanced manufacturing. In planning for the institutes, officials from 
Labor and Education met regularly to carry out tasks and 
responsibilities as well as to work out numerous differences between 
the agencies in terminology and approaches to the career pathway model. 
Based on the informal feedback received from training institute 
participants, Labor and Education have viewed the Strategic 
Partnerships initiative as a success, but the departments are not 
planning any other joint initiatives in the future due to budget 
constraints and other pressing priorities. Labor and Education are 
planning to issue a report in 2008 highlighting the lessons learned 
from the initiative. 

Since September 2007, the two departments have also been working on an 
interagency agreement to conduct a multivariate analysis of the 
National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) data. NAAL is a nationally 
representative assessment of English literacy among American adults 
aged 16 years and older and is conducted by the National Center for 
Education Statistics. According to officials, these data will help 
agency officials better understand the correlations among the areas of 
literacy, postsecondary education, and employment in specific 
industries. 

Labor and Education have also conducted other activities independent of 
their joint efforts, such as conferences, online meetings, Web sites, 
and other institutes that focus on various workforce development 
issues, some of which involve community colleges and the workforce 
development system. For example, Education has an initiative--the 
College and Career Transitions Initiative--that creates model career 
pathways and implements strategies to ease student transitions from 
secondary to postsecondary education into several occupation areas, 
including information technology; science, engineering, and 
mathematics; health science; education and training; and law, public 
safety, and security. Education has also created a new position--Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Community Colleges--to heighten the visibility 
of community colleges and issues specific to them, such as workforce 
development, within the department. Labor has established a Web site-- 
[hyperlink, http://www.workforce3one.org]--that highlights information 
and promising practices on workforce issues, including the role that 
community colleges play. The department also holds an annual workforce 
conference that has included sessions on community colleges and the 
workforce system. 

Concluding Observations: 

At a time when the nation is facing several workforce trends 
simultaneously, the nation's workforce system may be tested. The nation 
may soon face a labor shortage as the baby boomer generation retires, 
and economic dislocations are predicted to continue due to global 
competition, thus increasing the need to retrain and reemploy affected 
workers quickly. As these trends converge, it will be increasingly 
important that the nation have a nimble, responsive workforce system 
and good information about that workforce to maintain a competitive 
economy in a global marketplace. In addition, when Congress 
reauthorizes WIA, it will be important to consider issues that we have 
raised in the past, such as the yearly funding fluctuations that result 
from certain of the act's allocation formulas. 

Through their workforce education programs, community colleges will 
continue to be an important part of a responsive workforce system-- 
given their mission, affordability, and accessibility--as will federal 
policies and programs that support lifelong learning. The selected 
colleges we visited for this report are pursuing their workforce 
missions by working with the private sector in their communities and 
regions to serve diverse groups of individuals and businesses, and by 
participating in activities that forge connections to high-school 
students to prepare them for the workforce. Under WIA, community 
colleges are major providers of training and participate in other 
federal workforce programs. As the need grows for citizens to gain or 
upgrade their skills, an important federal policy issue is how to 
encourage more community colleges to follow the lead of those that are 
taking actions in this area. 

Labor and Education have taken some important first steps that address 
aspects of the community colleges' role in the workforce system through 
Labor's WIRED, High Growth, and Community Based grants and the jointly 
sponsored Strategic Partnerships initiative. Continued efforts by Labor 
and Education to build on past successes in aligning their respective 
workforce programs will help ensure that the nation will benefit from 
the full potential of community colleges that are already actively 
engaged in workforce development and the one-stop system and will 
encourage more community colleges to follow their examples. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to Labor and Education for review 
and comment. Labor provided a written response to the report (see app. 
III); Education did not. Both agencies provided technical comments, 
which we incorporated in the report where appropriate. 

Labor generally agreed with our findings and conclusions but expressed 
concern with comments from community college and state workforce 
officials who we interviewed about disincentives resulting from the WIA 
performance measures. Labor asserts that it is not the measures, per 
se, that may cause disincentives to arise in serving certain client 
groups, but the states' performance levels (i.e., percentage of clients 
that must meet these measures). The department contends that it 
provides for a thorough negotiation process with the states in setting 
these levels, which allows states to account for these groups. We 
believe that the performance measures for clients and the performance 
levels for states are interrelated, in that the percentage of clients 
meeting the individual measures determines the extent to which a state 
meets its performance levels. In light of Labor's comments, we changed 
the title of the relevant report section to convey that the 
disincentive relates to both individual measures and state performance- 
level measures. 

Labor also stated its position that the department's regulations and 
guidance provide enough latitude to states for addressing extenuating 
circumstances, such as hard-to-serve populations or adverse economic 
conditions, in determining their performance levels. We continue to 
believe that the disincentive issue, as evidenced by the information 
discussed in this and prior GAO reports, continues to surface, and that 
our previous recommendation that Labor develop a systematic model that 
would account for a variety of factors for all states to use could be a 
mechanism to help remedy the problem. 

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

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or [email protected]. Contacts for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. A GAO contact and other staff 
acknowledgments are listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

George A. Scott: 

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

To describe policies in place that address the involvement of community 
colleges in the one-stop system, we selected a stratified random 
probability sample of comprehensive one-stops and their corresponding 
Workforce Investment Board (WIB), which oversees a selected one-stop, 
for a sample survey. We received a list of comprehensive one-stop 
centers in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 
from the Department of Labor's locator database. To determine the 
reliability of these data, we compared the list from Labor to an April 
2007 GAO survey of states. We identified discrepancies in the number of 
comprehensive one-stop centers reported in several states. We completed 
follow-up with 27 states and 2 territories to ensure that we could 
select a representative sample of comprehensive one-stop centers. After 
completion of follow-up with the 27 states and 2 territories, we 
selected a sample from this corrected universe of one-stops. We 
determined that these data were sufficiently reliable to develop the 
universe of one-stops. There were 1,684 one-stops in our universe. 

To minimize the burden on WIB respondents, we decided to stratify the 
universe based on the number of comprehensive one-stops we identified 
as being governed by a particular WIB. Thus, comprehensive one-stops in 
a relatively small WIB (i.e., a WIB with 4 or fewer comprehensive one- 
stops) had a higher sampling rate than comprehensive one-stops in a 
larger WIB. The universe was divided into 4 strata, those with 3 or 
fewer, 4 to 7, 8 to 15, and 16 or more one-stops per WIB. The universe 
of comprehensive one-stops was stratified only to ease the burden on 
WIB respondents--the stratification was not used to compare survey 
results. We surveyed 334 one-stop centers and 311 of their associated 
WIBs. The response rates for the one-stop and WIB surveys were 73 
percent and 82 percent, respectively. 

Each one-stop had a nonzero probability of being selected, and that 
probability could be computed for any case. Each selected case was 
subsequently weighted in the analysis to account statistically for all 
of the one-stops in the universe, including those that were not 
selected. In addition to the survey about the one-stop that was sent to 
the WIB, the WIB also received a survey directly related to its 
activities. Since the WIB questionnaire was not specifically related to 
the one-stops in the survey (the questions were asked of the WIB in 
general), the two surveys were analyzed separately. Because each WIB 
had a different probability of selection (proportional to the number of 
one-stops), the statistical weights were calculated for a replacement 
design of a stratified sample with an unequal probability of selection. 

For both components of the survey, the one-stop and the WIB, we 
followed a probability procedure that was based on random selections; 
therefore, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we 
might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided different 
estimates, we expressed our confidence in the precision of our 
particular sample's results as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., 
plus or minus 9 percentage points). This is the interval that would 
contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we 
could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of 
the confidence intervals in this report will include the true values in 
the study population. All percentage estimates in this report have a 
margin of error of plus or minus 8 percent or less, unless otherwise 
noted. 

In addition to margins of error due to sampling, the practical 
difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly 
referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties concerning 
interpreting questions, sources of information that are available to 
respondents, or data entry and analysis can introduce unwanted 
variability into the survey results. We took steps in the development 
of both questionnaires used in this study, in the data collection, and 
in the data analysis to minimize nonsampling errors. For example, 
social science survey specialists designed both questionnaires in 
collaboration with GAO staff with subject matter expertise. Then, the 
draft questionnaires were pretested at various stages in their 
development with four WIB officials to ensure that questions were 
relevant, clearly stated, and easy to comprehend. The questionnaires 
were also reviewed by an additional GAO survey specialist. Data 
analysis was conducted by a GAO data analyst working directly with the 
GAO staff with subject matter expertise. When the data were analyzed, a 
second independent data analyst checked all computer programs for 
accuracy. Since these were Web-based surveys, respondents entered their 
answers directly into the electronic questionnaires. Doing so 
eliminated the need to have the data keyed into databases, thus 
removing an additional source of errors. To ensure adequate response 
rates, we sent multiple e-mails to respondents who did not complete 
their questionnaires within a reasonable time frame. In addition to 
sending multiple e-mails to survey nonrespondents, GAO contractors 
contacted the remaining nonrespondents by telephone to encourage them 
to respond. 

We conducted this performance audit from April 2007 through May 2008 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Community Colleges Selected for Site Visits: 

We conducted semistructured interviews with officials from 20 community 
colleges in 6 states to obtain a detailed understanding of their career 
and technical education activities, their relationships with their 
local one-stops and local WIBs, and their views on how particular state 
and federal policies enhanced or impeded their workforce development 
efforts. (See table 3.) In addition to these community colleges, we met 
with officials of Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland during an 
early exploratory interview in May 2007. We conducted our site visits 
between June and November 2007. 

Table 3: Community Colleges Selected for Site Visits: 

State: Iowa; 
Community college: Des Moines Area Community College; 
Kirkwood Community College; 
North Iowa Area Community College. 

State: Michigan; 
Community college: Lansing Community College; 
Oakland Community College. 

State: New Jersey; 
Community college: Camden County College; 
Cumberland County College; 
Salem Community College. 

State: North Carolina; 
Community college: Lenoir Community College; 
Pitt Community College; 

State: Oregon; 
Community college: Linn-Benton Community College; 
Mt. Hood Community College; 
Portland Community College; 

State: Washington; 
Community college: Bates Technical College; 
Bellingham Technical College; 
Clover Park Technical College; 
Pierce College District; 
Skagit Valley College; 
Tacoma Community College; 
Whatcom Community College. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

U.S. Department of Labor: 

Assistant Secretary for: 
Employment and Training: 
Washington. D.C. 20210: 

April 16, 2008: 

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

Dear Mr. Scott: 

This letter is the Department of Labors (DOL) response to the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report No. 08-547 
entitled, "Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers Collaborate to Meet 
21st Century Workforce Needs." We appreciate the opportunity to comment 
on the draft. 

DOL, concurs with GAO's concluding observations that community colleges 
will continue to be an important part of a responsive workforce system. 
In fact, DOL suggests that community colleges are a critical and 
pivotal part of the workforce education continuum. As noted in GAO's 
conclusion, DOL. has promoted and will continue to promote strong 
collaboration between the public workforce investment system and 
community colleges and other strategic partners through our initiatives 
(Community-Based Job Training Grants, Workforce Innovation in Regional 
Economic Development, and the High Growth Job Training Initiative), as 
well as through our policy guidance and technical assistance strategies 
to the workforce system and its partners. 

DOL has created a community of practice for community colleges on our 
online knowledge network, Workforce3One, and we have ongoing 
collaborations with the American Association of Community Colleges and 
the League for Innovation to develop and share best practices. DOL 
views the Department of Education as an important partner in this 
effort. Currently, DOL and Education do not jointly fund any 
initiatives; however, the two agencies are committed to ongoing 
collaboration around community college issues, as well as education at 
all levels, workforce education, program integration, and the 
identification of best practices. 

GAO makes several observations about the impact of Workforce Investment 
Act (WIA) performance measures on partnerships between community 
colleges and the workforce system in the attached report, and DOL 
offers its responses below. 1. WIA performance measures can potentially 
serve as a disincentive to working with certain clients (page 24). 

DOL disagrees that the measures, in and of themselves, create a 
disincentive to serve certain clients. WIA performance measures of 
Entered Employment, Retention, and Earnings represent the culmination 
of DOL's workforce training efforts. In other words, it is DOL's 
ultimate expectation to ensure that all program participants get a job, 
stay employed, and earn wages as a result of program intervention. To 
change that expectation for some groups would defeat the purpose of 
WIA, which is to integrate underutilized, more difficult to serve 
populations into the workplace. 

In some cases, performance levels have been noted as a disincentive to 
serve certain participants. DOL would like to point out a key 
distinction between measures and performance levels. Measures refer to 
a category or system of measurement, such as Entered Employment and 
Retention; performance levels are equivalent to goals or a target 
number, such as a percentage of participants. Setting ambitious, yet 
appropriate, performance levels for DOL's program performance measures 
is critical, and that is why DOL holds thorough negotiations with WIA 
state grantees. 

DOL believes it is important to drive the workforce investment system 
toward continuous improvement. At the same time, it is important to 
ensure that the workforce system is providing access to services for 
targeted populations that may face significant barriers to employment, 
such as older workers, individuals with disabilities, veterans, migrant 
and seasonal farm workers, Indian and Native Americans, or Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients. A recent review of 
data showed that TANF recipients who also participate in the workforce 
system have strong performance outcomes, in some cases higher than the 
general population that is served. In supporting local efforts to 
better tap into the wider pipeline of available workers, DOL wants to 
verify that performance targets correspond to representative levels of 
target populations to ensure that DOL does not impair the impact and 
intent of national job training programs and leave behind the most 
vulnerable populations in need of service. 

2. The negotiation process between labor and the states does not 
adequately consider factors that affect performance levels. GAO 
recommends development of a systematic model that could be used by all 
states to take into account factors such as population served and 
economic factors (page 25). 

When negotiating goals for adult programs, states proposing new efforts 
to increase access to services for special populations that may face 
significant barriers, such as older workers, individuals with 
disabilities, migrant and seasonal farm workers, Indian and Native 
Americans, or TANF recipients, may provide data to show how outcomes 
will be impacted. DOL supports efforts that will help states better tap 
into the wider pipeline of available workers. Available performance 
data indicate that the workforce investment system's employment and 
training programs have positive impacts on individuals served, 
including traditionally underserved populations. In order to continue 
good management and oversight of our programs, it will be necessary for 
states to demonstrate how outcomes are impacted by changes in the mix 
of participants served. 

When W1A was enacted, it authorized a negotiations process rather than 
the use of a national regression analysis (as was authorized by 
previous legislation) for determining performance levels. States do 
have the option of using a regression analysis or some type of 
statistical analysis when preparing materials for the performance 
negotiation process with DOL's regional administrators. However, DOL 
believes that the statute, regulations, and policies provide ample 
guidance to the states to take into account factors that may affect the 
negotiated performance levels. DOL believes that the negotiations 
process supports state and local responsibility to set strategic goals 
and to take ownership of the goal setting process. 

3. Education and Labor have not aligned their performance measures 
across their respective workforce programs (page 25). 

In 2001, the President announced a Management Agenda to improve the 
management and performance of the Federal government. One of the five 
government-wide goals, budget and performance integration, emphasizes 
program effectiveness. As part of the President's budget and 
performance integration initiative, six Federal agenciesï¿½ Labor, 
Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, 
Interior, and Veterans Affairsï¿½collaborated with the Office of 
Management and Budget to develop a set of uniform performance metrics, 
called "common measures," for programs with similar goals. DOL has been 
a leader in implementing the common measures initiative, with nearly 
all of its employment and training program having adopted the measures. 

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

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Brent R. Orrell: 
Acting Assistant Secretary: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

George A. Scott, (202) 512-7215, [email protected]: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Kathy Larin, Assistant Director, and Janet Mascia, Analyst-in-Charge, 
managed the assignment. Christopher Morehouse, Kelly Bradley, and Linda 
Stokes made significant contributions in all aspects of the assignment 
and in writing the report. Jean McSween, Stuart Kaufman, and Lisa Mirel 
assisted in the survey design, implementation, and data analysis. 
Susannah Compton provided writing assistance, and Jessica Botsford 
provided legal support. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Employment and Training Program Grants: Evaluating Impact and Enhancing 
Monitoring Would Improve Accountability. GAO-08-486. Washington, D.C.: 
May 7, 2008. 

Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve the 
Workforce System. GAO-07-1051T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007. 

Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in 
Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help Gauge 
Employer Involvement. GAO-07-167. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2006. 

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

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches 
to Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements. 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. 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. 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. GAO- 
04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004. 

Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on 
State Allocations. GAO-03-1043. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to 
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information 
Sharing is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for 
Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO-03-636. Washington, D.C.: 
April 25, 2003. 

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and Performance 
Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington, D.C.: April 18, 
2003. 

Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs, 
but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers. 
GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] For more information, see GAO, Employment and Training Program 
Grants: Evaluating Impact and Enhancing Monitoring Would Improve 
Accountability, GAO-08-486 (Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2008). 

[2] The sample sizes for the one-stop centers and their associated WIBs 
are not the same because some local areas contain more than one center. 

[3] Thomas Bailey, Timothy Leinbach, Marc Scott, Mariana Alfonso, 
Gregory Kienzl, and Benjamin Kennedy, Community College Research Center 
Brief No. 21, The Characteristics of Occupational Students in Post- 
Secondary Education (August 2004). 

[4] The authorization for WIA expired on September 30, 2003, but annual 
appropriations for WIA programs will continue through fiscal year 2008. 

[5] In addition to job training efforts at the federal level, many 
states operate their own employment and training programs, often 
funding them through employer taxes. States use these programs to 
address a variety of training needs, such as those of new and expanding 
businesses, employed or incumbent workers, and workers affected by 
employer layoffs or closures. For more information, see Regional 
Technology Solutions and the National Governors' Association, Center 
for Best Practices, A Comprehensive Look at State-Funded, Employer- 
Focused Job Training Programs (1999). 

[6] Labor allots 100 percent of the Adult funds and 80 percent of the 
Dislocated Worker funds. The Secretary of Labor retains the balance of 
the Dislocated Worker funds in a national reserve account to be used 
for National Emergency Grants, demonstrations, and technical assistance 
and allots the remaining funds to the states. Upon receiving its 
allotments, each state may set aside up to 15 percent of each allotment 
for statewide activities and may set aside no more than 25 percent of 
the Dislocated Worker allotment to provide rapid response services to 
workers affected by layoffs and plant closings. After states set aside 
funds for rapid response and for other statewide activities from the 
Dislocated Worker allotment, they allocate the remainder of the funds-
-at least 60 percent--to their local workforce areas. 

[7] Local boards, in partnership with the state, compile an ETPL by 
identifying training providers and programs whose performance qualifies 
them to receive WIA funds to train adults and dislocated workers. 

[8] WIA requires that ITAs only be used to purchase training from 
programs on the ETPL. To be eligible for training under WIA, an adult 
or dislocated worker must have received at least one core service 
(e.g., job assistance) and one intensive service (e.g., case management 
or comprehensive assessments); be unable to retain or obtain employment 
through such services; have the skills and qualifications to 
successfully complete the training; and be unable to obtain grant 
assistance from other sources to pay for the training. Eligibility for 
training is determined by WIA adult or dislocated work staff at the one-
stop center. For additional information about ITAs and training under 
WIA, see GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for 
Training, but Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes, GAO-
05-650 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005). 

[9] Pub. L. No. 109-270, 20 U.S.C. ï¿½ 2301 et seq. 

[10] The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act was enacted as Title 
II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-220, 20 
U.S.C. ï¿½ 9201 et seq. 

[11] Wake Tech Community College was not one of our selected sites. 
However, we spoke with officials of other community colleges in the 
course of our meetings with state community college associations. 

[12] GAO, Public Community Colleges and Technical Schools: Most Schools 
Use Both Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development, GAO- 
05-4 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 18, 2004), 13. 

[13] Nineteen of the 20 community colleges that we visited provided 
data on their contract training and total revenue for the 2006-2007 
year. For this purpose, the colleges were permitted to use a 12-month 
reporting period convenient to them, whether that represented a state 
fiscal year, federal fiscal year, program year, or academic year. 

[14] Using WIA funding for customized training is allowed where the 
employer pays not less than 50 percent of the cost of the training. 

[15] Some of these colleges receive funds through the Small Business 
Administration's Small Business Development Center program. 

[16] In Washington, during the 2006-2007 year, about 12 percent of the 
students in the state's Running Start dual-enrollment program were in 
career and technical programs, such as nursing, auto/diesel mechanics, 
and welding, and the majority of students were in academic transfer 
programs. North Carolina officials estimated that the percentage of all 
dual-enrollment students pursuing career and technical education was 
about 32 percent. 

[17] Fifteen community colleges provided us with data about the ITAs 
they issued during the 2006-2007 year. These data were for the most 
recent 12-month period, whether that represented a state fiscal year, 
federal fiscal year, program year, or academic year. 

[18] Of the community colleges that we visited, 11 provided us with 
enough data to derive this percentage. 

[19] A one-stop operator is selected by the local WIB either through a 
competitive process or under an agreement between the local WIB and a 
consortium of entities, which includes at least three mandatory 
partners. Under certain circumstances, the local WIB or entities that 
were operators prior to WIA may also be designated as the one-stop 
operator. 

[20] Passaic County Community College was not one of our selected 
sites. However, we spoke with officials of other community colleges in 
the course of our meetings with state community college associations. 

[21] For the percentage estimates for presidents and other staff, our 
confidence intervals exceeded a margin of error of plus or minus 8 
percent. Ranges for our estimates were 41 percent to 57 percent and 30 
percent to 48 percent, respectively. 

[22] For more information, see GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States 
and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but 
Labor Could Do More to Help, GAO-04-657 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 
2004); and Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further 
Improve the Workforce System, GAO-07-1051T (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 
2007). 

[23] GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation 
Formulas for Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers, GAO-03-636 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2003); and Workforce Investment Act: 
Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on State Allocations, GAO-03- 
1043 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 28, 2003). 

[24] GAO-08-486. 

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. ***