This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-19 
entitled 'Workforce Investment Act: Local Areas Face Challenges 
Helping Employers Fill Some Types of Skilled Jobs' which was released 
on December 2, 2013.  

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:  

Report to Congressional Committees:  

December 2013:  

Workforce Investment Act:  

Local Areas Face Challenges Helping Employers Fill Some Types of 
Skilled Jobs:  

GAO-14-19:  

GAO Highlights:  

Highlights of GAO-14-19, a report to congressional committees.  

Why GAO Did This Study:  

The economy is recovering from the recession, but employers still have 
difficulty filling certain jobs. DOL’s Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 
Adult and Dislocated Worker programs are designed in part to help 
employers find the skilled workers they need. The programs provide 
participants with services including job training, which must be for 
occupations that are in demand. However, questions have been raised 
about the extent to which these programs are positioned to help supply 
workers for jobs that employers have difficulty filling. The 
conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
2012 mandated that GAO assess the Adult and Dislocated Worker 
programs. This report addresses (1) how local workforce areas have 
identified occupations that are in demand and how they have guided 
participants toward training for them; and (2) what challenges local 
workforce areas have faced in helping employers fill certain jobs. GAO 
conducted a web-based survey of a nationally representative sample of 
200 local workforce investment boards (WIB), which oversee local 
workforce areas, and used the results to create estimates about the 
population of all WIBs nationwide. GAO also interviewed DOL officials 
and workforce organizations.  

What GAO Found:  

Based on survey results for calendar year 2012, GAO estimates that 
most local areas used various sources of information to identify 
occupations that are in demand (i.e., available jobs and occupations 
that are projected to grow). Local areas found all of the sources of 
information they used to be at least moderately useful. To identify 
occupations that are in demand, GAO estimates that nearly 90 percent 
of local areas used state job banks and occupational projections, both 
of which are funded by the Department of Labor (DOL). All percentages 
presented on this highlights page are estimates from the survey and 
have a sampling error of no larger than plus or minus 7 percentage 
points. In addition, 93 percent of areas used at least one local 
initiative, such as a partnership with the local economic development 
agency, to identify such jobs. As compared to other sources, areas 
reported using local initiatives because they provided more detailed 
information and better reflected local employers’ needs. To guide 
participants toward training, most local areas required them to 
complete certain activities, such as meeting with a case manager to 
discuss training options (80 percent) or completing a skills 
assessment (78 percent). Most local areas faced challenges in guiding 
participants toward training. Specifically, local areas faced 
challenges related to participants’ lack of financial or work 
supports, such as child care or transportation (67 percent); 
participants’ lack of the basic skills necessary even to participate 
in training (66 percent); difficulty finding training providers who 
could quickly adapt curricula to employers’ changing needs (62 
percent); and high training costs (54 percent). However, in 57 percent 
of local areas, these challenges did not affect their ability to guide 
participants toward training.  

Local areas had difficulty helping employers fill certain jobs for a 
variety of reasons, including the low skills of some participants, 
according to GAO estimates. Eighty percent of local areas reported 
that employers had difficulty filling certain jobs, some of which can 
be considered “middle-skilled” jobs, such as welders and machinists, 
because they require more than a high-school diploma but less than a 4-
year college degree. These local areas had difficulty supplying such 
workers because participants lacked relevant qualifications or the 
basic skills needed to participate in related training, among other 
reasons. To help participants improve their skills, DOL and other 
agencies have encouraged the use of career pathways approaches that 
combine job training with basic skills education and support services. 
According to these agencies, such approaches aim to enable 
participants to secure industry relevant certification and obtain 
employment within an occupational area and advance to higher levels of 
future education and employment in the area. However, little is known 
about the extent to which local areas are using career pathways 
approaches—or how they are using these approaches—specifically to 
prepare participants for middle-skilled jobs that employers have had 
difficulty filling. Without information on whether and how local areas 
are using these approaches to prepare participants for such jobs, DOL 
may not be well-positioned to help local areas use these approaches to 
better meet employers’ needs.  

What GAO Recommends:  

GAO recommends that DOL collect and disseminate information on how 
local areas have used career pathways approaches to prepare workers 
for middle-skilled jobs employers have difficulty filling. DOL agreed 
with our recommendation. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-19]. For more 
information, contact Andrew Sherrill at (202) 512-7215 or 
sherrilla@gao.gov.  

Contents:  

Letter:  

Background:  

Local Areas Used Various Sources to Identify Demand Occupations and 
Required Participants to Complete Certain Activities before Entering 
Training:  

Local Areas Had Difficulty Helping Employers Fill Certain Jobs for a 
Variety of Reasons, Including the Low Skills of Some Participants:  

Conclusions:  

Recommendation:  

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:  

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:  

WIB Survey:  

WIB Interviews:  

Skills Gap Analysis:  

Appendix II: Occupations That Employers Had Difficulty Filling in 
Calendar Year 2012:  

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor:  

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:  

Related GAO Products:  

Tables:  

Table 1: Sources of Labor Market Information, by Provider and Primary 
Funding Source:  

Table 2: States Selected for WIB Interviews:  

Table 3: Occupations Identified by Survey Respondents As Those That 
Employers Had Difficulty Filling in Calendar Year 2012, by Standard 
Occupational Classification Code:  

Figures:  

Figure 1: Sources of Information That Local Areas Used Most to 
Identify Demand Occupations in Calendar Year 2012:  

Figure 2: Of Those Areas That Used Local Initiatives to Identify 
Demand Occupations, Percentage That Used Each Initiative in Calendar 
Year 2012:  

Figure 3: Percentage of Areas That Used WIA Funding to Support Each 
Local Initiative in Calendar Year 2012:  

Figure 4: Activities That Local Areas Required or Encouraged 
Participants to Complete Before Entering Training in Calendar Year 
2012:  

Figure 5: Major or Moderate Challenges Most Frequently Faced by Local 
Areas in Guiding Participants to Training in Calendar Year 2012:  

Figure 6: Reasons Why Local Areas Had Difficulty Helping Employers 
Fill Jobs in Calendar Year 2012:  

Abbreviations:  

BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics:  

CLASP: Center for Law and Social Policy:  

CPS: Current Population Survey:  

DMTF: Direct Match Title File:  

DOL: Department of Labor:  

Education: Department of Education:  

ETA: Employment and Training Administration:  

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:  

OES: Occupational Employment Statistics:  

OVAE: Office of Vocational and Adult Education:  

RFI: Request for Information:  

SOC: Standard Occupational Classification:  

WIA: Workforce Investment Act:  

WIB: workforce investment board:  

[End of section]  

GAO:
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548:  

Dcember 2, 2013:  

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

The Honorable Jack Kingston: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Rosa DeLauro: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and 
Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives:  

The economy is recovering from the recession, but employers are still 
having difficulty filling certain jobs. The Department of Labor's 
(DOL) Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult and Dislocated Worker 
programs are designed to help jobseekers find employment and to help 
employers find the skilled workers they need. In program year 2011, 
these programs provided job training to over 250,000 participants, or 
about 13 percent of all WIA participants, according to DOL's published 
data on participants who exited the programs.[Footnote 1] WIA requires 
this training to be for occupations that are in demand, also known as 
demand occupations.[Footnote 2] State and local workforce investment 
boards (WIB) are responsible for administering WIA activities in 
approximately 600 local areas across the country.[Footnote 3] To help 
local workforce areas identify demand occupations, DOL funds a variety 
of sources of labor market information that are provided by states. 
Local areas may also undertake additional initiatives to identify such 
jobs. 

Previous research has shown that local workforce areas identify demand 
occupations and use that information to guide participants in the WIA 
Adult and Dislocated Worker programs toward training.[Footnote 4] 
However, questions have been raised about the labor market information 
that informs these programs and the extent to which the programs are 
positioned to help supply workers for jobs that employers have had 
difficulty filling. The conference report accompanying the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012[Footnote 5] mandated that GAO 
assess the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs. This report addresses 
(1) how local workforce areas have identified occupations that are in 
demand and how they have guided participants toward training for them; 
and (2) what challenges local workforce areas have faced in helping 
employers fill certain jobs. 

To address both objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws, 
regulations, and program guidance. We also conducted a web-based 
survey of a nationally representative sample of 200 WIBs, and used the 
results of the survey to create estimates about the population of all 
WIBs nationwide.[Footnote 6] The survey asked questions about the 
following topics, in calendar year 2012: 1) which sources of labor 
market information local areas used to identify occupations that are 
in demand, and the sources they found most useful; 2) how they guided 
participants toward training, and the challenges they faced in doing 
so; and 3) whether employers in their areas have had difficulty 
filling certain jobs, and if so, the challenges they have faced in 
helping employers fill those jobs. We did not conduct a skills gap 
analysis because reliable data were not available.[Footnote 7] This 
report does not contain all the results from the survey. The survey 
and a more complete tabulation of the results can be viewed at GAO-14-
20SP We also interviewed DOL officials as well as representatives from 
national workforce associations and organizations with expertise in 
workforce issues. See appendix I for more information on our scope and 
methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to December 2013 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. 

Background:  

The WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs provide employment 
services to a wide range of participants. The Adult Program serves all 
individuals age 18 and older, and the Dislocated Worker Program serves 
individuals who have been or will be terminated or laid off from 
employment, among others.[Footnote 8] The Adult Program prioritizes 
certain services for recipients of public assistance and other low-
income individuals when program funds are limited.[Footnote 9] To 
allow individuals to participate, both programs offer supportive 
services such as transportation, childcare, housing, and needs-related 
payments under certain circumstances.[Footnote 10] WIA requires that 
the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and other federally funded 
employment and training programs provide services through one-stop 
centers--now called American Job Centers--so that jobseekers and 
employers can find assistance at a single location.[Footnote 11]  

DOL's Employment and Training Administration (ETA) administers the 
Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and oversees their 
implementation, which is carried out by states and localities. WIA 
requires that each state have one or more local workforce investment 
areas, each governed by a local workforce investment board (WIB). 
[Footnote 12] WIBs' responsibilities include setting policy and 
overseeing service delivery for the local workforce area, coordinating 
workforce investment activities with economic development strategies, 
and developing relationships with employers.[Footnote 13] Our previous 
work has identified innovative collaborations used by some WIBs to 
help employers meet their needs for workers with certain skills, among 
other needs.[Footnote 14] WIBs also select the entities to operate 
American Job Centers and conduct oversight of the American Job Center 
network.[Footnote 15] 

The Adult and Dislocated Worker programs provide participants with a 
variety of employment services. The programs provide three levels of 
service: core, intensive, and training. 

* Core services include basic services such as job searches and labor 
market information, and may be accessed with or without staff 
assistance. 

* Intensive services include such activities as comprehensive 
assessment and case management, which require greater staff 
involvement. Intensive services are available to participants who are 
unable to obtain or retain employment after receiving at least one 
core service. 

* Training services include such activities as occupational skills or 
on-the-job training. In order to be eligible for training services, 
participants must: 1) be unable to obtain or retain employment after 
receiving at least one intensive service; 2) be in need of training; 
and 3) have the skills and qualifications to successfully complete the 
training program, among other requirements.[Footnote 16] 

To determine whether participants need training and to assess their 
skills, WIBs may require them to complete certain activities. We 
previously found that most WIBs required participants to complete 
skills assessments or tests and gather information about the 
occupation for which they wanted training before entering a training 
program.[Footnote 17] After participants are determined to be eligible 
for training, DOL requires that they select approved training 
providers in consultation with case managers, but participants 
ultimately choose the training programs in which they participate. 
[Footnote 18] WIA requires that training be directly linked to demand 
occupations, which DOL interprets to include both currently available 
jobs as well as occupations that are projected to grow in the future. 
[Footnote 19] 

In fiscal year 2013, the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs received 
a total of about $1.9 billion in appropriations, down from about $2.5 
billion in fiscal year 2000 (a 24 percent reduction).[Footnote 20] In 
order to receive their full funding allocations, states must meet 
agreed upon levels of performance. WIA requires performance measures 
that gauge program results for jobseekers in the areas of entered 
employment, employment retention, earnings, and credential attainment. 
[Footnote 21] In addition, WIA requires measures of customer 
satisfaction for jobseekers and for employers.[Footnote 22] States may 
request waivers to report performance measures known as common 
measures, which do not include credential attainment.[Footnote 23] WIA 
requires states to negotiate performance levels with DOL and holds 
states accountable for achieving these levels by tying them to 
financial sanctions and incentive funding.[Footnote 24] 

Sources of Information for Identifying Demand Occupations:  

To help local areas identify demand occupations--including both 
available jobs and occupations that are projected to grow--DOL funds a 
variety of sources of labor market information that are provided by 
state labor market information offices and state workforce agencies 
(see table 1). Local areas may also use online job postings, which are 
funded by private companies and organizations, to identify demand 
occupations. In addition, local areas may undertake other initiatives 
to identify demand occupations. 

Table 1: Sources of Labor Market Information, by Provider and Primary 
Funding Source:  

Sources for identifying available jobs:  

Source of labor market information: State job banks; 
Entity that provides information: Sources for identifying available 
jobs: State workforce agencies; 
Entity that primarily funds information: Sources for identifying 
available jobs: DOL (formula grants to states)[A]. 

Source of labor market information: Online job postings; 
Entity that provides information: Sources for identifying available 
jobs: Private companies and organizations; 
Entity that primarily funds information: Sources for identifying 
available jobs: Private companies and organizations[B]. 

Source of labor market information: Job vacancy surveys; 
Entity that provides information: Sources for identifying available 
jobs: State labor market information offices; 
Entity that primarily funds information: Sources for identifying 
available jobs: DOL (Workforce Information Grants to states)[C]. 

Sources for identifying occupations that are projected to grow:  

Source of labor market information: Industry and occupational 
projections (including state, regional, and local projections); 
Entity that provides information: Sources for identifying available 
jobs: State labor market information offices; 
Entity that primarily funds information: Sources for identifying 
available jobs: DOL (Workforce Information Grants to states). 

Source of labor market information: Customized reports and tools; 
Entity that provides information: Sources for identifying available 
jobs: State labor market information offices; 
Entity that primarily funds information: Sources for identifying 
available jobs: DOL (Workforce Information Grants to states). 

Source of labor market information: Other labor market data (e.g., 
information about unemployment, wages, salaries, and skill sets); 
Entity that provides information: Sources for identifying available 
jobs: State labor market information offices; 
Entity that primarily funds information: Sources for identifying 
available jobs: DOL[D]. 

Source of labor market information: Regional labor market economists/ 
analysts; 
Entity that provides information: Sources for identifying available 
jobs: State labor market information offices[E]; 
Entity that primarily funds information: Sources for identifying 
available jobs: DOL[E] (Workforce Information Grants to states). 

Source of labor market information: O*NET[F]; 
Entity that provides information: Sources for identifying available 
jobs: The National Center for O*NET Development, operated by the North 
Carolina Department of Commerce (state workforce agency); 
Entity that primarily funds information: Sources for identifying 
available jobs: DOL. 

Source of labor market information: America's Career InfoNet (part of 
DOL's CareerOneStop website)[G]; 
Entity that provides information: Sources for identifying available 
jobs: Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development 
(state workforce agency); 
Entity that primarily funds information: Sources for identifying 
available jobs: DOL. 

Source: DOL. 

[A] Funded primarily with Wagner-Peyser Act formula funds and, to a 
lesser extent, WIA formula funds. 

[B] Some states use Wagner-Peyser Act funding to support their role in 
providing online job postings to participants. 

[C] Some states use WIA formula funds and state funds to supplement 
Workforce Information Grants from DOL. 

[D] The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) funds national level data 
through Labor Market Information Cooperative Agreements, and ETA funds 
state and local data through Workforce Information Grants to states. 

[E] Regional labor market analysts/economists are employed by state 
labor market information offices. DOL does not directly fund these 
positions, but states may use federal funding such as Workforce 
Information Grants, Wagner-Peyser Act funding, and WIA formula funds 
to support these personnel costs. 

[F] O*NET provides a variety of occupational information, including 
occupational skill requirements. 

[G] America's Career InfoNet provides labor market information by 
occupation and industry, links to state labor market information 
offices, and other career exploration tools.  

[End of table]  

Local Areas Used Various Sources to Identify Demand Occupations and 
Required Participants to Complete Certain Activities before Entering 
Training:  

Most Local Areas Used a Variety of Sources to Identify Demand 
Occupations:  

We estimate that a majority of local areas used various sources of 
information to identify demand occupations (see figure 1). All but one 
of these sources--online job postings, which are funded by private 
companies and organizations--are funded primarily by DOL and provided 
by state labor market information offices or state workforce agencies. 
The sources local areas used the most were state job banks and 
industry and occupational projections. Specifically, we estimate that 
nearly 90 percent of local areas used state job banks to identify 
available jobs, and nearly 90 percent of local areas used industry and 
occupational projections to identify occupations that are projected to 
grow.[Footnote 25] 

Figure 1: Sources of Information That Local Areas Used Most to 
Identify Demand Occupations in Calendar Year 2012:  

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 stacked horizontal bar graphs]  

Sources of information for identifying available jobs:  

State job banks: 
Used to a large extent: 58%; 
Used to a moderate extent: 29%; 
Total: 87%.  

Online job postings: 
Used to a large extent: 37%; 
Used to a moderate extent: 41%; 
Total: 79%.  

Job vacancy surveys: 
Used to a large extent: 21%; 
Used to a moderate extent: 31%; 
Total: 52%.  

Sources of information for identifying occupations that are projected 
to grow:  

State industry and occupational projections[A]: 
Used to a large extent: 56%; 
Used to a moderate extent: 33%; 
Total: 89%.  

Regional or local industry and occupational projections[A]: 
Used to a large extent: 52%; 
Used to a moderate extent: 36%; 
Total: 88%.  

Regional labor market analysts/economists[B]: 
Used to a large extent: 44%; 
Used to a moderate extent: 36%; 
Total: 79%.  

O*NET: 
Used to a large extent: 35%; 
Used to a moderate extent: 42%; 
Total: 77%.  

Other labor market data (e.g., information about unemployment, wages, 
salaries, or skill sets)[A]: 
Used to a large extent: 46%; 
Used to a moderate extent: 28%; 
Total: 75%.  

Customized reports and tools[A]: 
Used to a large extent: 28%; 
Used to a moderate extent: 31%; 
Total: 58%.  

America’s Career InfoNet (also known as Career One Stop): 
Used to a large extent: 8%; 
Used to a moderate extent: 34%; 
Total: 41%.  

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: In some cases, the total is not the exact sum of the individual 
estimates due to rounding to the nearest whole percentage point. The 
estimates in the first bar graph (sources of information for 
identifying available jobs) have 95 percent confidence intervals of 
within plus or minus 7 percentage points. The estimates in the second 
bar graph (sources of information for identifying occupations that are 
projected to grow) have 95 percent confidence intervals of within plus 
or minus 8.5 percentage points. Additionally, all sources of 
information above are primarily funded by DOL, except for online job 
postings, which are funded by private companies and organizations. 

[A] Areas obtained this information from the state labor market 
information office. 

[B] These percentages reflect the 72 percent of local areas located in 
states that employed regional labor market analysts/economists; 28 
percent of areas reported that their states did not employ such 
analysts/economists or did not know whether their states employed 
them.  

[End of figure]  

Local areas found all of the sources of information they used to 
identify demand occupations at least moderately useful. Local areas 
found regional labor market analysts or economists the most useful of 
the sources for identifying occupations that are projected to grow, 
although they used them slightly less than industry and occupational 
projections, as shown in figure 1 above. However, 28 percent of local 
areas did not have access to such analysts or economists because their 
states did not employ them or did not know whether their states 
employed them.[Footnote 26] 

In addition to using these sources of information, most of which are 
provided by state agencies, we estimate that 93 percent of all areas 
undertook at least one local initiative to identify demand 
occupations.[Footnote 27] DOL encourages areas to use local 
initiatives to identify such occupations. Specifically, DOL has issued 
guidance encouraging local areas to use information from employers and 
economic development partnerships, among other sources, to identify 
available jobs and occupations that are projected to grow.[Footnote 
28] As compared to other sources of information, about 90 percent of 
areas used local initiatives for at least one of the following 
reasons:[Footnote 29] 

* They more accurately reflected the current and expected needs of 
local employers. 

* They provided more detailed information. 

* They provided more useful information. 

Of those areas that used local initiatives, nearly all had a 
partnership with the local economic development agency (see figure 2). 
For example, one local area used this partnership to learn about the 
hiring needs of employers that planned to locate in the area. 
Additionally, 90 percent of local areas used real-time labor market 
information to identify demand occupations.[Footnote 30] A majority of 
these areas obtained such information from the state labor market 
information office, state workforce agency, or state or local economic 
development agency, while about one-third purchased it from private 
companies. Of the local initiatives, areas found discussions or focus 
groups with employers about their hiring plans or skill needs most 
useful for identifying demand occupations. 

Figure 2: Of Those Areas That Used Local Initiatives to Identify 
Demand Occupations, Percentage That Used Each Initiative in Calendar 
Year 2012:  

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph]  

Type of local initiative: Developed or maintained a partnership with 
the local economic development agency: 99%.  

Type of local initiative: Used real-time labor market information: 
Areas that purchased it: 33%; 
Areas that obtained it without purchasing it[A]: 56%; 
Total: 90%.  

Type of local initiative: Held discussions or focus groups with 
employers about their hiring plans or skill needs: 80%;  

Type of local initiative: Surveyed local employers about their hiring 
plans or skill needs: 62%.  

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: This figure provides estimates for a subset of local areas, 
specifically, those areas that used local initiatives to identify 
demand occupations (an estimated 93 percent of areas). For real-time 
labor market information, the total is not the exact sum of the 
individual estimates due to rounding to the nearest whole percentage 
point. The confidence interval for the estimate of 99 percent is 95 to 
100 percent; for the estimate of 33 percent it is 26 to 39 percent; 
for the estimate of 58 percent it is 51 to 64 percent; for the 
estimate of 90 percent it is 84 to 95 percent; for the estimate of 80 
percent it is 72 to 86 percent; and for the estimate of 62 percent it 
is 55 to 69 percent. 

[A] These local areas obtained real-time labor market information from 
the state labor market information office, state workforce agency, or 
state or local economic development agency.  

[End of figure]  

Most of the areas that undertook local initiatives used WIA funding to 
support them (see figure 3). Some local areas also used other funding 
sources--such as the Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser) program, the 
state workforce agency, economic development agencies, and private 
funding--to support these initiatives. 

Figure 3: Percentage of Areas That Used WIA Funding to Support Each 
Local Initiative in Calendar Year 2012:  

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]  

Type of local initiative: Purchased real-time labor market 
information[A]: 84%;  

Type of local initiative: Held discussions or focus groups with local
employers about their hiring plans or skill needs: 73%.  

Type of local initiative: Developed or maintained a partnership with
the local economic development agency: 73%.  

Type of local initiative: Surveyed local employers about
their hiring plans or skill needs: 70%.  

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: The confidence interval for the estimate of 84 percent is 70 to 
93 percent; for the first estimate of 73 percent (discussions or focus 
groups) it is 64 to 81 percent; for the second estimate of 73 percent 
(partnership with the local economic development agency) it is 67 to 
79 percent; and for the estimate of 70 percent it is 62 to 77 percent. 

[A] As noted above, we estimate that 33 percent of local areas that 
used local initiatives purchased real-time labor market information.  

[End of figure]  

Most Local Areas Required Participants to Complete Certain Activities 
Prior to Training:  

We estimate that, in 2012, a majority of local areas required 
participants to complete certain activities before entering a training 
program (see figure 4).[Footnote 31] For example, many local areas 
required participants to: 1) meet with case managers to discuss labor 
market information and training options; 2) complete a skills or 
interest assessment; or 3) obtain information about the occupation for 
which they wanted training. When local areas did not require 
participants to complete these activities, they typically encouraged 
participants to complete them. 

Figure 4: Activities That Local Areas Required or Encouraged 
Participants to Complete Before Entering Training in Calendar Year 
2012:  

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked horizontal bar graph]  

Type of activity: Meet with case managers to discuss labor market 
information and training options; 
Required activity: 80%; 
Encouraged activity: 14%; 
Total: 95%.  

Type of activity: Complete a skills assessment; 
Required activity: 78%; 
Encouraged activity: 18%; 
Total: 97%.  

Type of activity: Gather information about the occupation for which 
they want training; 
Required activity: 68%; 
Encouraged activity: 22%; 
Total: 90%.  

Type of activity: Complete an occupational interest inventory; 
Required activity: 72%; 
Encouraged activity: 29%; 
Total: 92%.  

Type of activity: Demonstrate aptitude in an area; 
Required activity: 52%; 
Encouraged activity: 34%; 
Total: 87%.  

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: In some cases, the total is not the exact sum of the individual 
estimates due to rounding to the nearest whole percentage point. The 
confidence interval for the estimate of 80 percent is 73 to 86 
percent; for the estimate of 14 percent it is 9 to 21 percent; for the 
estimate of 95 percent it is 89 to 98 percent; for the estimate of 78 
percent it is 71 to 85 percent; for the estimate of 18 percent it is 
12 to 26 percent; for the estimate of 97 percent it is 92 to 99 
percent; for the estimate of 68 percent it is 62 to 74 percent; for 
the estimate of 22 percent it is 15 to 29 percent; for the estimate of 
90 percent it is 84 to 94 percent; for the estimate of 62 it is 56 to 
69 percent; for the estimate of 29 it is 23 to 35 percent; for the 
estimate of 92 percent it is 86 to 96 percent; for the estimate of 52 
it is 46 to 59 percent; for the estimate of 34 it is 28 to 41 percent; 
and for the estimate of 87 percent it is 80 to 92 percent.  

[End of figure]  

In half of local areas, employment prospects were greater outside the 
local area than inside the area.[Footnote 32] When employment 
prospects were greater in neighboring areas, we estimate that 62 
percent of local areas guided participants toward training for those 
jobs to a large or moderate extent.[Footnote 33] 

Most Local Areas Overcame Challenges in Guiding Participants Toward 
Training:  

Most local areas faced challenges in guiding participants toward 
training, but were still able to guide them toward training. We 
estimate that two-thirds of local areas faced major or moderate 
challenges related to (1) participants' lack of financial or work 
supports, such as child care or transportation, and (2) participants' 
lack of basic skills necessary to participate in training, such as 
reading and math skills (see figure 5). In 57 percent of local areas, 
however, the challenges they experienced did not negatively affect 
their ability to guide participants toward training.[Footnote 34] In 
the 38 percent of local areas where these challenges had a negative 
effect, more than half of areas guided fewer participants toward 
training, and one-third guided fewer participants toward their first 
choice of training.[Footnote 35] 

Figure 5: Major or Moderate Challenges Most Frequently Faced by Local 
Areas in Guiding Participants to Training in Calendar Year 2012:  

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]  

Type of challenge: Participants lacked financial or work supports
(e.g., child care or transportation) that would enable them to 
participate in training: 67%.  

Type of challenge: Participants lacked the basic skills necessary to 
participate in training: 66%.  

Type of challenge: Finding training providers who could quickly adapt 
their curricula to the changing needs of employers: 62%.  

Type of challenge: The cost of training in certain fields was above
the Individual Training Account limitset by the state or local board: 
54%.  

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: The confidence interval for the estimate of 67 percent is 61 to 
73 percent; for the estimate of 66 percent it is 60 to 73 percent; for 
the estimate of 62 percent it is 56 to 68 percent; and for the 
estimate of 54 percent it is 47 to 60 percent. This survey question 
also included the following response categories: minor challenge, not 
a challenge, and no opinion/don't know.  

[End of figure]  

Local Areas Had Difficulty Helping Employers Fill Certain Jobs for a 
Variety of Reasons, Including the Low Skills of Some Participants:  

Challenges in Helping Fill Jobs Included Participants' Lack of 
Qualifications and Basic Skills:  

Local areas cited a variety of reasons why they had difficulty helping 
employers fill certain jobs in 2012, including participants' lack of 
relevant qualifications and basic skills, according to GAO estimates. 
Eighty percent of local areas we surveyed said that employers had 
difficulty filling jobs in certain occupations.[Footnote 36] Local 
areas most frequently cited the following jobs as those that employers 
had difficulty filling: welders, machinists, heath care occupations, 
computer occupations, and truck drivers (see appendix II for a 
complete list of occupations identified by WIBs as those that 
employers had difficulty filling).[Footnote 37] In almost all cases, 
the WIBs we surveyed also identified these as high growth occupations 
in their local areas. According to workforce experts, some of these 
jobs, such as welders and machinists, can be considered "middle-
skilled" jobs because they require more than a high-school diploma but 
less than a 4-year college degree. Other jobs that require a 4-year 
degree or more--such as some registered nurses--are considered "high-
skilled" jobs. Of the local areas that reported that employers had 
difficulty filling certain jobs and were able to identify these jobs, 
81 percent indicated that employers used American Job Centers to try 
to fill these positions.[Footnote 38] Among the most common reasons 
why these local areas had difficulty supplying such workers were 
participants' lack of relevant qualifications and lack of the basic 
skills needed to participate in training (see figure 6). While DOL 
officials said that local areas should provide participants who lack 
skills and work supports with the services they need to enter training 
for middle-skilled jobs, they said it is not realistic to expect the 
Adult and Dislocated Worker programs to train low-skilled participants 
for high-skilled positions that require advanced degrees, due to the 
skill level and length of training required. However, DOL officials 
noted that these programs do serve some middle- and high-skilled 
participants who obtain employment after receiving only core services. 

Figure 6: Reasons Why Local Areas Had Difficulty Helping Employers 
Fill Jobs in Calendar Year 2012:  

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Reasons local areas had difficulty helping employers fill jobs:  

WIA participants lacked the relevant work experience, education,
or training credentials needed for these jobs: 95%.  

WIA participants did not have the basic skills to participate in the 
type of training for jobs that employers needed: 67%.  

Local area was unable to train enough workers to meet employers' 
needs: 66%.  

Employers were unable or unwilling to provide on-the-job training
for participants who did not have the credentials they needed: 59%.  

WIA participants were not interested in training for these 
occupations: 44%.  

WIA participants were unwilling to accept the wages employers offered: 
37%.  

WIA participants were unwilling to accept the working conditions
employers offered (e.g., hours, job security, promotion potential): 
28%.  

Local area had difficulty finding training providers who offered the
type of training that employers needed: 27%.  

Source: GAO analysis of survey data.  

Note: This figure provides estimates for a subset of local areas. 
Eighty percent of local areas we surveyed said that employers had 
difficulty filling jobs in certain occupations. Of the local areas 
that reported that employers had difficulty filling certain jobs and 
were able to identify these jobs, 81 percent indicated that employers 
used American Job Centers to try to fill these positions. For this 
subset of local areas, this figure provides estimates of the extent to 
which these reasons explained why local areas had difficulty helping 
employers fill jobs. The confidence interval for the estimate of 95 
percent is 87 to 98 percent; for the estimate of 67 percent it is 59 
to 75 percent; for the estimate of 66 percent it is 58 to 74 percent; 
for the estimate of 59 percent it is 50 to 67 percent; for the 
estimate of 44 percent it is 35 to 52 percent; for the estimate of 37 
percent it is 29 to 45 percent; for the estimate of 28 percent it is 
19 to 39 percent; and for the estimate of 27 percent it is 18 to 38 
percent.  

[End of figure]  

In addition, workforce experts cited decreased funding and the lack of 
a performance measure on skill improvement as additional challenges. 
WIA funding has decreased by 24 percent since 2000, and experts we 
interviewed told us that local areas face difficult tradeoffs in 
making decisions about spreading limited training funds over a broad 
population of participants. Specifically, they said that because it 
takes more time and resources to prepare low-skilled participants to 
enter training, local areas must balance helping low-skilled workers 
improve their skills with serving as many individuals as possible. In 
addition, experts noted that WIA does not currently have a performance 
measure to track improvements in participants' basic skills.[Footnote 
39] Workforce experts we interviewed said that current measures reward 
states and local areas for placing participants into employment 
quickly and do not reward basic skills improvements or progress toward 
a degree or certificate. As a result of these challenges, experts said 
that local areas may not guide participants toward training programs 
for middle-skilled jobs, which tend to be longer and more expensive 
than other training programs and typically require a certain basic 
skill level. However, DOL officials disagreed that WIA performance 
measures encourage local areas to place participants into employment 
quickly. Also, DOL officials cited customer choice as a reason why 
some low-skilled participants do not receive training for middle-
skilled jobs. Officials said that, when participants select training, 
they consider not only the guidance they receive from case managers 
but also their own interests and how long they can afford to be out of 
the workforce.[Footnote 40] 

Little is Known About the Use of Career Pathways to Prepare Workers 
for Certain Hard-to-Fill Jobs:  

To help participants in WIA and other programs improve their skills, 
gain employment, and progress in a career, DOL has coordinated with 
the Departments of Education (Education) and Health and Human Services 
(HHS) to fund and provide guidance for career pathways approaches, 
which link basic skills education, occupational training, and support 
services.[Footnote 41] According to these agencies, these approaches 
aim to enable individuals to secure industry relevant certification 
and obtain employment within an occupational area and to advance to 
higher levels of future education and employment in that area. In 
2010, DOL and Education launched the Career Pathways Initiative by 
providing 1-year grants to nine states and two tribal entities to 
develop these approaches. Based on the lessons learned from these 
grants, DOL has taken steps to help other states and local areas 
implement these approaches. Specifically, DOL has issued guidance on 
developing career pathways systems; provided technical assistance 
tools, such as webinars; shared promising practices; and maintained a 
Career Pathways Community of Practice website. In addition, DOL, 
Education, and HHS--as members of the Federal Career Pathways 
Interagency Team--have collaborated on joint technical assistance 
efforts. For example, in 2012, DOL issued a joint letter with 
Education and HHS to encourage local areas' use of career pathways 
approaches to help prepare low-skilled participants for employment. 
The interagency team plans to issue a national catalog of career 
pathways toolkits in the future. DOL has also funded grants that are 
not specifically targeted at career pathways approaches but can be 
used for this purpose. In 2012, DOL awarded 26 Workforce Innovation 
Fund grants to support innovative approaches for design and delivery 
of employment and training services; 17 of the 26 grantees are using 
these grants to develop career pathways approaches, according to DOL. 
[Footnote 42] 

DOL and workforce experts find career pathways approaches promising, 
and efforts are underway to gather more information about their 
implementation and effectiveness. According to DOL officials and 
experts we interviewed, career pathways approaches are a promising 
strategy that state and federal agencies should adopt to support lower-
skilled individuals. Efforts are underway to collect information about 
how many states are using career pathways approaches. DOL conducted a 
preliminary review of the extent to which states are using these 
approaches, and found that all but seven states are participating in 
some type of career pathways initiative at either the state or local 
level. To supplement the information collected in this initial review, 
the Career Pathways Interagency Team plans to issue a national Request 
for Information (RFI) during program year 2013 to obtain more detailed 
feedback from states and local areas on career pathways successes and 
any obstacles to implementation. In addition, HHS has contracted with 
Abt Associates Inc. to conduct a 10-year evaluation of nine innovative 
career pathways programs across the country, known as the Innovative 
Strategies for Increasing Self-Sufficiency project. This evaluation 
will measure the effects of these programs on participants' 
employment, earnings, and other outcomes, and will also include a 
study of program implementation and operations as well as a cost-
benefit analysis.[Footnote 43] 

However, little is known about the extent to which local areas are 
using career pathways approaches--or how they are using these 
approaches--specifically to prepare participants for middle-skilled 
jobs that employers have difficulty filling. According to the guidance 
issued by the Federal Career Pathways Working Group, one essential 
component of career pathways approaches is a specific focus on local 
workforce needs, and DOL officials said that these approaches are one 
way to prepare participants for middle-skilled jobs that employers 
have difficulty filling. Nevertheless, DOL and other agencies do not 
plan to collect and disseminate information on whether and how local 
areas are using these approaches to prepare participants for such jobs 
as part of the RFI or the evaluation of career pathways programs. 
According to federal government internal control standards, agencies 
should have information on whether their programs are meeting their 
intended objectives.[Footnote 44] Without information on whether and 
how local areas are using career pathways approaches to prepare 
participants for middle-skilled jobs that employers have difficulty 
filling, DOL may not be well-positioned to help local areas use these 
approaches to better meet employers' needs. 

Conclusions:  

Employers' difficulty filling certain jobs could reasonably lead to 
questions about the labor market information that informs federal 
employment and training programs. The results from our survey, 
however, suggest that the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs are 
using multiple sources of labor market information to guide 
participants toward training for both available jobs and occupations 
that are projected to grow. With regard to the extent to which these 
programs are positioned to help supply workers for hard-to-fill jobs, 
our work suggests that the programs have difficulty supplying workers 
for certain types of middle-skilled jobs due to the low skill level of 
some program participants, among other reasons. While it appears that 
these participants are receiving training, their lack of basic skills 
may be an obstacle to obtaining training that would prepare them for 
the middle-skilled jobs that employers are having difficulty filling. 
Further, both DOL and workforce experts emphasized that this problem 
exists in a larger context, and that helping participants improve 
their basic skills can involve a considerable investment of time and 
resources. 

Given that a variety of factors affect whether skilled jobs are 
filled, it may not be realistic to expect the Adult and Dislocated 
Worker programs to fully meet all employers' needs, but these programs 
can play an important role. DOL has made efforts to help improve 
participants' skills through career pathways approaches and plans to 
gather more information about their implementation. Despite these 
efforts, our findings suggest that there are some local areas in which 
employers' needs for certain types of middle-skilled workers are not 
being met. Without additional information--beyond what it already 
plans to collect--on whether and how local areas are using career 
pathways approaches to prepare participants for the types of middle-
skilled jobs that employers are having difficulty filling, DOL may not 
be well-positioned to help local areas use these approaches to better 
meet employers' needs. 

Recommendation:  

To help local areas better meet employers' needs for skilled workers, 
we recommend that the Secretary of Labor:  

* collect information on the use of career pathways approaches by 
local areas specifically to prepare workers for the types of middle-
skilled jobs that employers have difficulty filling; and:  

* to the extent such approaches are being used, disseminate 
information about them, such as implementation challenges, strategies, 
and results. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:  

We provided a draft of this report and the e-supplement containing our 
detailed survey results to the Secretary of Labor for review and 
comment. DOL provided a written response (see appendix III). DOL 
agreed with our recommendation and did not provide any comments on the 
e-supplement. 

Specifically, DOL’s response noted that the agency is committed to 
promoting effective labor market information resources and using 
career pathways approaches to prepare workers for career advancement 
and to help employers gain a skilled workforce. DOL agreed that there 
is value in learning more about how local areas are using career 
pathways approaches. To identify promising career pathways approaches 
used by local areas, DOL plans to (1) leverage existing investments in 
the Workforce Innovation Fund and other DOL initiatives; (2) continue 
to engage with federal and non-federal partners through the work of 
the interagency Career Pathways Working Group; and (3) widely 
disseminate information learned from studying these approaches through 
DOL’s career pathways Community of Practice, other communication 
vehicles, and technical assistance activities, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees and the Secretary of Labor. In addition, the report is 
available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix IV.  

Signed by:  

Andrew Sherrill Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:  

[End of section]  

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:  

Our review focused on: 1) how local workforce areas have identified 
occupations that are in demand and how they have guided participants 
toward training for them; and 2) what challenges local workforce areas 
have faced in helping employers fill certain jobs. 

To address both objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws and 
regulations, as well as the Department of Labor's (DOL) guidance to 
states and local workforce areas. We also conducted a web-based survey 
of a nationally representative sample of 200 workforce investment 
boards (WIB) and interviewed nine WIBs that were not part of our 
survey sample (see WIB Survey and WIB Interviews below). In addition, 
we interviewed DOL officials as well as representatives from the 
National Association of Workforce Boards, the National Association of 
State Workforce Agencies, and the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment 
Research. To address the challenges local areas face in helping 
employers fill certain jobs, we also interviewed representatives from 
the National Skills Coalition and the Center for Law and Social Policy 
(CLASP). We did not conduct a skills gap analysis as part of this 
study primarily because reliable data on the conditions associated 
with a skills gap were not available at the local or state levels (see 
Skills Gap Analysis below). 

WIB Survey:  

Design and Implementation:  

To address both objectives, we conducted a web-based survey of a 
nationally representative sample of 200 WIBs. The questionnaire 
included questions about which sources of labor market information 
local areas used to identify demand occupations, the sources they 
found most useful, how they guided participants toward training, and 
the challenges they faced in guiding participants toward training in 
calendar year 2012. In addition, we asked respondents whether 
employers in their areas have had difficulty filling certain jobs, and 
if so, the challenges they have experienced in helping employers fill 
those jobs. 

We selected a stratified random probability sample from DOL's list of 
all 578 WIBs nationwide as of November 2012, which included both local 
and statewide WIBs.[Footnote 44] With this probability sample, each 
member of the study population had a nonzero probability of being 
included, and that probability could be computed for any member. We 
stratified the population into 10 groups based on U.S. Census Bureau 
regions to ensure geographic distribution.[Footnote 45] Each sample 
element was subsequently weighted in the analysis to account 
statistically for all the members of the population, including those 
who were not selected. In designing the sample, we did not consider 
indicators of the size of the local areas overseen by WIBs, such as 
population or amount of WIA funding received because such data were 
not readily available. Our sample included 195 local WIBs and 5 
statewide WIBs. 

To minimize errors arising from differences in how questions might be 
interpreted and to reduce variability in responses that should be 
qualitatively the same, we conducted pretests with four local WIBs and 
one statewide WIB over the telephone. To ensure that we obtained a 
variety of perspectives on our survey, we selected WIBs with diversity 
on the following criteria: 1) Employment and Training Administration 
(ETA) region, 2) whether the WIB was located in an urban or rural 
area, and 3) state and local unemployment rate. Based on feedback from 
these pretests, we revised the questionnaire in order to improve the 
clarity of the questions. An independent survey specialist within GAO 
also reviewed a draft of the questionnaire prior to its 
administration. In addition, we asked knowledgeable DOL officials to 
comment on the questionnaire and incorporated their comments as 
appropriate. 

After completing the pretests, we administered the survey. On March 7, 
2013, we sent an e-mail announcement of the questionnaire to executive 
directors and other knowledgeable representatives of the WIBs in our 
sample, notifying them that our online questionnaire would be 
activated within a week. On March 13, 2013, we sent a second e-mail 
message to these WIB representatives in which we informed them that 
the questionnaire was available online and provided them with unique 
passwords and usernames. We also followed up by telephone and e-mail 
with these WIB representatives as needed to clarify their survey 
responses. We collected responses through April 15, 2013. We received 
completed questionnaires from 148 WIBs, for a 74 percent unweighted 
response rate.[Footnote 47] Detailed survey results are available at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-20SP]. 

Analysis of Responses and Data Quality:  

We used standard descriptive statistics to analyze responses to the 
questionnaire. All estimates based on the survey results are subject 
to sampling error. Because we followed a probability procedure based 
on random selections, 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 express our confidence in the 
precision of our particular sample's results as a 95 percent 
confidence interval. This is the interval that would contain the 
actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have 
drawn. We used the results of the survey to create estimates about the 
population of all WIBs nationwide. All percentage estimates from the 
survey have their sampling margins of error calculated at the 95 
percent level of confidence. 

To minimize nonsampling errors, and to enhance data quality, we 
employed recognized survey design practices in the development of the 
questionnaire and in the collection, processing, and analysis of the 
survey data. For instance, as previously mentioned, we pretested the 
questionnaire with WIBs to minimize errors arising from differences in 
how questions might be interpreted and to reduce variability in 
responses that should be qualitatively the same. We further reviewed 
the survey to ensure the ordering of survey sections was appropriate 
and that the questions within each section were clearly stated and 
easy to comprehend. To reduce nonresponse, another source of 
nonsampling error, we followed up by telephone and e-mail with WIB 
representatives who had not responded to the survey to encourage them 
to complete it. In reviewing the survey data, we performed automated 
checks to identify inappropriate answers. We further reviewed the data 
for missing or ambiguous responses and followed up with WIB 
representatives when necessary to clarify their responses. On the 
basis of our application of recognized survey design practices and 
follow-up procedures, we determined that the data were of sufficient 
quality for our purposes. 

WIB Interviews:  

Concurrently with our survey, we interviewed nine WIBs that were not 
part of our survey sample to gather in-depth information about 
selected survey topics. To select WIBs for interviews, we selected 
five states with diversity regarding the following criteria: 1) state 
unemployment rate, 2) geography, and 3) whether DOL officials 
identified the state as having promising practices in using labor 
market information to guide participants toward training. In applying 
these criteria, we ensured that we selected one state with a statewide 
WIB (see table 2). 

Table 2: States Selected for WIB Interviews:  

State: California; 
Statewide WIB: No; 
Unemployment rate in November 2012 (as compared to national average of 
7.7 percent): Above average; 
Geography (ETA region): Region 6; 
Identified by DOL as having promising practices: Yes. 

State: Michigan; 
Statewide WIB: No; 
Unemployment rate in November 2012 (as compared to national average of 
7.7 percent): Above average; 
Geography (ETA region): Region 5; 
Identified by DOL as having promising practices: No. 

State: New Jersey; 
Statewide WIB: No; 
Unemployment rate in November 2012 (as compared to national average of 
7.7 percent): Above average; 
Geography (ETA region): Region 1; 
Identified by DOL as having promising practices: Yes. 

State: Virginia; 
Statewide WIB: No; 
Unemployment rate in November 2012 (as compared to national average of 
7.7 percent): Below average; 
Geography (ETA region): Region 2; 
Identified by DOL as having promising practices: No. 

State: Wyoming; 
Statewide WIB: Yes; 
Unemployment rate in November 2012 (as compared to national average of 
7.7 percent): Below average; 
Geography (ETA region): Region 4; 
Identified by DOL as having promising practices: No. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from ETA and data from DOL's 
Bureau of Labor Statistics.  

[End of table]  

We then randomly selected two WIBs in each of the four states with 
local WIBs (California, Michigan, New Jersey, and Virginia). In each 
of these states, we asked representatives of the state WIB to classify 
each local WIB in their state as either primarily urban or primarily 
rural.[Footnote 48] We then randomly selected one primarily urban and 
one primarily rural WIB in each state to interview, excluding those 
that were part of our survey sample.[Footnote 49] We interviewed a 
total of eight local WIBs and one statewide WIB. Of the eight local 
WIBs, five were primarily urban and three were primarily rural. 
[Footnote 50] 

Skills Gap Analysis:  

We did not conduct a skills gap analysis as part of this study 
primarily because reliable data on the conditions associated with a 
skills gap were not available at the local or state levels. According 
to officials from DOL's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the 
following conditions would be associated with a skills gap in a 
particular occupation: 1) jobs remain unfilled for a longer-than-
normal time period, 2) wages are increasing, and 3) unemployment is 
low. We explored the possibility of using existing datasets to 
identify occupations that have rising wages and low unemployment 
rates, and then asking the WIBs we surveyed whether employers in their 
local areas had difficulty filling these jobs. However, we concluded 
that reliable data on occupational unemployment rates are only 
available on the national level. Because national data may not reflect 
local labor market conditions, we did not incorporate such data into 
our survey. Instead, we asked the WIBs we surveyed to list occupations 
that employers in their area had difficulty filling and then coded 
their responses to Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes. 
For more information on the occupational coding, see appendix II. 

Specifically, BLS' Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program 
provides data on employment and wages by occupation, but officials 
told us that local-level OES data on occupational wage growth may not 
be reliable, and noted that data on occupational unemployment rates 
are not available at the local level.[Footnote 51] In addition, we 
determined that state-level data on occupational unemployment rates 
are not sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Specifically, we were 
unable to use state-level data from the Current Population Survey 
(CPS) to identify occupations with lower than average unemployment 
rates because the standard error associated with these estimates was 
over 20 percent in states with small populations.[Footnote 52] While 
data from online job openings--such as that published by The 
Conference Board--are used by some researchers to estimate state-level 
unemployment by broad occupational categories, these data are not 
available at the local level, and the reliability and validity of the 
data is not known. 

We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to December 2013 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: Occupations That Employers Had Difficulty Filling in 
Calendar Year 2012:  

Our web-based survey of 200 workforce investment boards (WIB) included 
a question asking if employers in their local area had difficulty 
filling jobs in certain occupations in calendar year 2012 (see 
appendix I for more information on the survey's methodology). If WIBs 
answered yes, they were asked to list up to five occupations that 
employers had difficulty filling in open-ended boxes and also to 
indicate if the WIB considered each occupation to be high growth in 
its local area. A total of 110 WIBs listed one occupation that was 
difficult to fill, 95 WIBs listed 2 occupations, 70 WIBs listed 3 
occupations, 47 WIBs listed 4 occupations, and 32 WIBs listed 5 
occupations. We coded these open-ended responses to the 2010 Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) codes. The 2010 SOC system is used 
by federal statistical agencies to classify workers into occupational 
categories for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or 
disseminating data.[Footnote 53] 

In order to code the survey responses to the most appropriate SOC 
code, we searched the SOC titles or definitions or the related Direct 
Match Title File (DMTF)[Footnote 54] on keywords or phrases provided 
in the open-ended survey responses. Survey responses were coded to the 
most detailed SOC code allowable based on the search results. In many 
cases, there was a one-to-one match at the detailed SOC level for many 
detailed occupations, including registered nurses, welders, and 
machinists. Survey responses that had a one-to-one match at a broad, 
minor group, or major group SOC level were coded at that higher level, 
including engineers and driver/sales workers and truck drivers. 

Some survey responses resulted in multiple matches at the detailed SOC 
level. If all of the matches were among related occupations, the 
response was coded at the SOC level that incorporated all of the title 
matches. For example, a survey response of web designer and programmer 
matched to several detailed occupations that could be rolled up into 
the minor group of computer occupations. 

Some survey responses matched to multiple detailed occupations that 
could not be rolled up to a higher SOC level. For example, a survey 
response of accounting matched to accountants and auditors which is a 
business and financial occupation, and also to bookkeeping, 
accounting, and auditing clerks which is an office and administrative 
support occupation. Responses were coded to more than one SOC code if 
May 2012 Occupational Employment Survey data indicated that workers 
were employed in all of the matched occupations in the metropolitan 
statistical area that contained the WIB. The most codes that were 
assigned to one survey response were two codes. Of the 354 survey 
responses that were coded, only 17 responses were assigned two SOC 
codes resulting in a total of 371 SOC codes assigned. 

Survey respondents frequently cited manufacturing (15) or advanced 
manufacturing (14), which are considered industries,[Footnote 55] not 
occupations, and matched to multiple SOC codes in different 
occupational groups. We created separate categories for these two 
responses in order to preserve the specificity of these responses 
given the relatively large number of survey responses where WIBs 
indicated these jobs were difficult to fill. Similarly, we created a 
separate code for the 20 responses that just stated health care 
without specifying an occupation, and also for the 7 responses that 
just stated nurse without specifying registered nurse or licensed 
practical nurse. Other survey responses that were vague or could not 
otherwise be matched to SOC occupations were coded as unknown. 

A second analyst reviewed the SOC code matches and codes assigned by 
the first analyst to see if the assigned codes had face validity. In 
cases where there was disagreement or additional information was 
needed, the two analysts met to reconcile differences. A third analyst 
independently verified the counts of the codes listed in table 3 
below. The number of coded occupations represents those most 
frequently cited by WIBs that responded to the survey question and 
cannot be generalized beyond that population. 

Table 3: Occupations Identified by Survey Respondents As Those That 
Employers Had Difficulty Filling in Calendar Year 2012, by Standard 
Occupational Classification Code:  

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 11-0000; 
SOC Title: Management Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 2; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 0. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 11-3031; 
SOC Title: Financial Managers; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 0. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 11-9151; 
SOC Title: Social and Community Service Managers; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 0. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 13-0000; 
SOC Title: Business and Financial Operations Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 5; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 4. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 13-1111; 
SOC Title: Management Analysts; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 13-1161; 
SOC Title: Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 13-2011; 
SOC Title: Accountants and Auditors; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 3; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 2. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 15-0000; 
SOC Title: Computer and Mathematical Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 40; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 37. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 15-0000; 
SOC Title: Computer and Mathematical Occupations, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 15-1100; 
SOC Title: Computer Occupations, unspecified[B]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 27; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 25. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 15-1121; 
SOC Title: Computer Systems Analysts; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 2; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 2. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 15-1130; 
SOC Title: Software Developers and Programmers, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 2; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 2. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 15-1131; 
SOC Title: Computer Programmers; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 5; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 4. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 15-1132; 
SOC Title: Software Developers, Applications; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 15-1151; 
SOC Title: Computer User Support Specialists; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 2; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 2. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 17-0000; 
SOC Title: Architecture and Engineering Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 21; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 20. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 17-0000; 
SOC Title: Architecture and Engineering Occupations, unspecified[C]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 11; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 10. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 17-2000; 
SOC Title: Engineers, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 7; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 7. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 17-2112; 
SOC Title: Industrial Engineers; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 17-3021; 
SOC Title: Aerospace Engineering and Operations Technicians; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 2; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 2. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 19-0000; 
SOC Title: Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 2; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 0. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 19-1020; 
SOC Title: Biological Scientists, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 0. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 19-1031; 
SOC Title: Conservation Scientists; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 0. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 21-0000; 
SOC Title: Community and Social Service Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 0. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 21-1012; 
SOC Title: Educational, Guidance, School, and Vocational Counselors; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 0. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 25-0000; 
SOC Title: Education, Training, and Library Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 2; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 25-0000; 
SOC Title: Education, Training, and Library Occupations, 
unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 25-2000; 
SOC Title: Preschool, Primary, Secondary, and Special Education School 
Teachers, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 0. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 27-0000; 
SOC Title: Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 27-1021; 
SOC Title: Commercial and Industrial Designers; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 29-0000; 
SOC Title: Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 39; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 35. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 29-0000; 
SOC Title: Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations, 
unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 29-1051; 
SOC Title: Pharmacists; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 3; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 2. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 29-1060; 
SOC Title: Physicians and Surgeons, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 2; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 29-1120; 
SOC Title: Therapists, unspecified; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 29-1122; 
SOC Title: Occupational Therapists; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 29-1126; 
SOC Title: Respiratory Therapists; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 2; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 29-1141; 
SOC Title: Registered Nurses; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 15; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 15. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 29-2011; 
SOC Title: Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technologists; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 29-2012; 
SOC Title: Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technicians; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 2; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 2. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 29-2034; 
SOC Title: Radiologic Technologists; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 29-2041; 
SOC Title: Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 0. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 29-2052; 
SOC Title: Pharmacy Technicians; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 29-2061; 
SOC Title: Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 3; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 3. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 29-2071; 
SOC Title: Medical Records and Health Information Technicians; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 5; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 5. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 31-0000; 
SOC Title: Healthcare Support Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 9; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 8. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 31-1010; 
SOC Title: Nursing, Psychiatric, and Home Health Aides, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 2; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 2. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 31-1014; 
SOC Title: Nursing Assistants; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 4; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 3. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 31-2011; 
SOC Title: Occupational Therapy Assistants; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 31-2021; 
SOC Title: Physical Therapist Assistants; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 2; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 2. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: N/A; 
SOC Title: Healthcare, unspecified[D]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 20; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 20. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: N/A; 
SOC Title: Nurses, unspecified[D]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 7; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 6. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 35-0000; 
SOC Title: Food Preparation and Serving-Related Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 3; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 35-0000; 
SOC Title: Food Preparation and Serving-Related Occupations, 
unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 3; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 37-0000; 
SOC Title: Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 0. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 37-2012; 
SOC Title: Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 0. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 41-0000; 
SOC Title: Sales and Related Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 6; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 5. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 41-0000; 
SOC Title: Sales and Related Occupations, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 2; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 2. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 41-2000; 
SOC Title: Retail Sales Workers, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 2; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 2. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 41-2031; 
SOC Title: Retail Salespersons; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 0. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 41-3031; 
SOC Title: Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services Sales 
Agents; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 43-0000; 
SOC Title: Office and Administrative Support Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 13; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 8. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 43-0000; 
SOC Title: Office and Administrative Support Occupations, 
unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 4; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 2. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 43-3031; 
SOC Title: Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 3; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 2. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 43-4051; 
SOC Title: Customer Service Representatives; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 4; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 2. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 43-5000; 
SOC Title: Material Recording, Scheduling, Dispatching, and 
Distributing Workers, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 43-6011; 
SOC Title: Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative 
Assistants; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 47-0000; 
SOC Title: Construction and Extraction Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 12; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 12. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 47-0000; 
SOC Title: Construction and Extraction Occupations, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 4; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 4. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 47-2000; 
SOC Title: Construction Trades Workers, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 2; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 2. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 47-2111; 
SOC Title: Electricians; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 5; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 5. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 47-5071; 
SOC Title: Roustabouts, Oil and Gas; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 49-0000; 
SOC Title: Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 23; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 22. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 49-0000; 
SOC Title: Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations, 
unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 4; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 3. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 49-3031; 
SOC Title: Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine Specialists; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 49-9021; 
SOC Title: Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Mechanics and 
Installers; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 49-9040; 
SOC Title: Industrial Machinery Installation, Repair, and Maintenance 
Workers, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 15; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 15. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 49-9041; 
SOC Title: Industrial Machinery Mechanics; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 49-9071; 
SOC Title: Maintenance and Repair Workers, General; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 51-0000; 
SOC Title: Production Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 98; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 92. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 51-0000; 
SOC Title: Production Occupations, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 5; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 4. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 51-2000; 
SOC Title: Assemblers and Fabricators, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 51-2092; 
SOC Title: Team Assemblers; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 51-4000; 
SOC Title: Metal Workers and Plastic Workers, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 5; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 5. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 51-4011; 
SOC Title: Computer-Controlled Machine Tool Operators, Metal and 
Plastic; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 9; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 7. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 51-4012; 
SOC Title: Computer Numerically Controlled Machine Tool Programmers, 
Metal and Plastic; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 5; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 5. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 51-4041; 
SOC Title: Machinists; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 34; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 33. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 51-4121; 
SOC Title: Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 37; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 35. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 51-6031; 
SOC Title: Sewing Machine Operators; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 53-0000; 
SOC Title: Transportation and Material Moving Occupations; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 23; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 23. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 53-0000; 
SOC Title: Transportation and Material Moving Occupations, 
unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 2; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 2. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 53-3030; 
SOC Title: Driver/Sales Workers and Truck Drivers, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 19; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 19. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 53-3032; 
SOC Title: Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: 53-7000; 
SOC Title: Material Moving Workers, unspecified[A]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 1; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 1. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: N/A; 
SOC Title: Manufacturing, unspecified[D]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 15; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 15. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: N/A; 
SOC Title: Advanced manufacturing, unspecified[D]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 14; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 13. 

2010 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Code: N/A; 
SOC Title: Unknown[E]; 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 14; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 13. 

Grand Total: 
Number of coded occupations that employers had difficulty filling: 371; 
Number of coded occupations considered to be high growth: 336. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

[A] SOC titles that are listed as unspecified indicate those survey 
responses that could only be coded at a broad, minor group, or major 
group level. 

[B] Survey responses that stated information technology were coded as 
computer occupations. 

[C] Of the 11 survey responses coded as architecture and engineering 
occupations, 10 responses specifically stated "engineering," which 
could include both engineers and engineering technicians. These 
responses were coded at the major group level that incorporated both 
engineers and engineering technicians. 

[D] This is not a SOC title. However, we coded survey responses that 
specifically stated the title listed in the table because of the 
relatively large number of WIBs that provided that response. 

[E] Survey responses that were vague or could not otherwise be matched 
to SOC occupations were coded as unknown.  

[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: 

November 1, 2013: 

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

Dear Mr. Sherrill: 

On behalf of the U.S. Department of Labor (the Department), I want to 
thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled: "Workforce 
Investment Act: Local Areas Face Challenges Helping Employers Fill 
Some Types of Skilled Jobs" (GAO-14-19). 

The Department is pleased to see that nearly 90 percent of local areas 
are using our labor market information (LMI) tools and reported that 
they are helpful in guiding participants toward training and jobs that 
are projected to grow. As you mention in your report, while it may not 
be realistic to expect the Workforce Investment Act Adult and 
Dislocated Worker programs to fully meet all employers' needs, these 
programs do play an important role. Our Department, under the
leadership of Secretary Perez, is committed to promoting effective LMI 
resources and the use of career pathways approaches to prepare workers 
successfully for career advancement and help employers gain a skilled 
workforce. 

The GAO report included the following two-part recommendation: 

To help local areas better meet employers' needs for skilled workers, 
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Labor: 

* Collect information on the use of career pathways approaches by 
local areas specifically to prepare workers for the types of middle-
skilled jobs that employers have difficulty filling; and; 

* To the extent such approaches are being used, disseminate 
information about them such as implementations, challenges and results. 

The Department agrees with GAO's recommendations and believes there is 
value in learning more about the use of career pathways approaches by 
local areas. Although the Department's primary statutory and grantor 
relationship is with state governments, we remain committed to 
identifying promising career pathways approaches within local areas. 
To do so, the Department will take the following steps: 

* Leverage existing investments in initiatives, such as the Workforce 
Innovation Fund, Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and 
Career Training, YouthBuild, and H-1B Technical Skills Training grants 
to learn more about promising, evidence-based career pathways 
approaches in local areas. 

* Through the work of the interagency Career Pathways Working Group, 
which includes the Departments of Education and Health and Human 
Services, continue to engage with federal and non-federal partners to 
identify and learn about career pathways programs in local areas. 

* Widely disseminate knowledge learned from studying career pathways 
approaches, such as implementation strategies, challenges, and 
results, to the broad public workforce system and interested 
stakeholders through our career pathways Community of Practice 
[hyperlink, https://learnwork.workforce3one.org/], other communication 
vehicles and technical assistance activities, as appropriate. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report. 
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Eric M. Seleznow: 
Acting Assistant Secretary: 

[End of section]  

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:  

GAO Contact:  

Andrew Sherrill, (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov:  

Staff Acknowledgments:  

In addition to the contact named above, Patrick DiBattista (Assistant 
Director), Caitlin Croake, Hedieh Fusfield, Linda Siegel, and Paul 
Wright made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to 
this report were Carl Barden, Jessica Botsford, Ted Burik, David 
Chrisinger, David Dornisch, Jill Lacey, Kathy Leslie, Mimi Nguyen, and 
Rhiannon Patterson. 

[End of section]  

Related GAO Products:  

Workforce Investment Act: DOL Should Do More to Improve the Quality of 
Participant Data. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-4]. 
(Washington, D.C.: December 2013). 

Workforce Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations between Workforce 
Boards and Employers Helped Meet Local Needs. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-97]. (Washington, D.C.: January 19, 
2012). 

Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in 
Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help Gauge 
Employer Involvement. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-650]. (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 
2005). 

Labor Market Information: Trends and Issues in Funding of State 
Programs. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-336]. 
(Washington, D.C.: December 20, 2002). 

[End of section]  

Footnotes:  

[1] According to DOL, approximately 2 million participants received 
employment services from the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs 
and exited the programs between April 2011 and March 2012. Those who 
exited are a subset of all participants because some participants 
received services but did not yet exit the programs. These are the 
most recent published data available. 

[2] For the purposes of this report, we are defining occupations that 
are in demand to include both currently available jobs and occupations 
that are projected to grow in the future. WIA does not provide a 
definition of occupations that are in demand. DOL officials told us 
that the agency interprets this term to mean both available jobs and 
occupations that are projected to grow, although officials said that 
the agency has not defined this term for states and local areas. 

[3] Most states have one state WIB that is responsible for overseeing 
multiple local WIBs. Some states have one statewide WIB and no local 
WIBs. For the purposes of this report, we use the term "local areas" 
to refer to the areas overseen by both local and statewide WIBs.  

[4] See U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General--Office 
of Audit. Additional Information Needed To Measure The Effectiveness 
And Return On Investment Of Training Services Funded Under The WIA 
Adult And Dislocated Worker Programs. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2011. 

[5] H. R. Rep. No. 112-331, at 1121 (2011) (Conf. Rep.).  

[6] In designing the sample, we did not consider indicators of the 
size of the local areas overseen by WIBs, such as population or amount 
of WIA funding received, because such data were not readily available.  

[7] We considered conducting a skills gap analysis to assess whether 
there is a mismatch between employer needs and the skills of available 
workers. Officials from DOL's Bureau of Labor Statistics said that the 
following conditions would be associated with a skills gap in a 
particular occupation: 1) jobs remain unfilled for a longer-than-
normal time period, 2) wages are increasing, and 3) unemployment is 
low. However, we decided not to conduct a skills gap analysis as part 
of this study primarily because reliable data on the conditions 
associated with a skills gap were not available at the local or state 
levels. For a detailed explanation of why we did not conduct a skills 
gap analysis, see appendix I. 

[8] A dislocated worker is an individual who: 1) has been terminated 
or laid off, or has received a notice of termination or layoff from 
employment; 2) is eligible for or has exhausted unemployment 
insurance; 3) has demonstrated an appropriate attachment to the 
workforce, but is not eligible for unemployment insurance and is 
unlikely to return to a previous industry or occupation; 4) has been 
terminated or laid off or received notification of termination or 
layoff from employment as a result of a permanent closure or 
substantial layoff; 5) is employed at a facility where the employer 
has made the general announcement that the facility will close within 
180 days; 6) was self-employed but is unemployed as a result of 
general economic conditions in the community or because of a natural 
disaster; or 7) is a displaced homemaker. See 29 U.S.C. § 2801(9). 

[9] 29 U.S.C. § 2864(d)(4)(E). 

[10] 29 U.S.C. §§ 2864(e)(2) and 2864(e)(3). Supportive services are 
defined at 29 U.S.C. § 2801(46). 

[11] 29 U.S.C. § 2864(c). Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 
36-11, Announcement of American Job Center Network (Washington, D.C.: 
June 14, 2012) strongly encouraged states and localareas to refer to 
the one-stop system as the American Job Center network and to one-stop 
career centers as American Job Centers, in order to increase job 
seeker and employer awareness of available workforce development 
resources. 

[12] 29 U.S.C. §§ 2831 and 2832.  

[13] 29 U.S.C. § 2832(d). 

[14] See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations 
between Workforce Boards and Employers Helped Meet Local Needs. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-97] (Washington, D.C.: 
Jan. 19, 2012). 

[15] 29 U.S.C. § 2832(d). 

[16] Participants must also: 1) select a training program that is 
directly linked to employment opportunities in the local area or in 
another area to which the individual is willing to relocate, and 2) be 
unable to obtain grant assistance from other sources to pay training 
costs. 20 C.F.R. § 663.310.  

[17] See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for 
Training, but Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-650] (Washington, D.C.: 
June 29, 2005). 

[18] 20 C.F.R. § 663.440(c).  

[19] 29 U.S.C. § 2864(d)(4)(G)(iii). 

[20] Fiscal year 2000 appropriations are presented in nominal dollars 
and are not adjusted for inflation. 

[21] 29 U.S.C. § 2871(b)(2)(A).  

[22] 29 U.S.C. § 2871(b)(2)(B).  

[23] Common performance measures were developed under an Office of 
Management and Budget initiative, which sought to unify definitions 
for performance across programs with similar goals. As of May 2013, a 
total of 50 states and territories had waivers to use common 
performance measures for the Adult and Dislocated Worker programs.  

[24] 29 U.S.C. §§ 2871(b)(3)(A),  and (g) 20 U.S.C. § 9273. For all 
states--those with waivers and those without waivers--incentive or 
sanction determinations are based only on the following performance 
measures: entered employment, employment retention, and earnings. See 
Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 9-07, Revised Incentive 
and Sanction Policy for Workforce Investment Act Title IB Programs 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 10, 2007).  

[25] See figure 1 for these estimates and confidence intervals. All 
percentage estimates from the survey have margins of error at the 95 
percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted. 

[26] The confidence interval for the estimate of 28 percent is 22 to 
34 percent. We estimate that 72 percent of local areas were located in 
states that employed regional labor market analysts or economists. The 
confidence interval for the estimate of 72 percent is 66 to 78 
percent.  

[27] The confidence interval for the estimate of 93 percent is 88 to 
97 percent.  

[28] Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 33-11, Annual Program 
Guidance for the Program Year 2012 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 
Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Wagner-Peyser programs (Washington, 
D.C.: June 8, 2012). 

[29] We estimate that 90 percent of local areas used local initiatives 
to identify available jobs for at least one of these reasons. The 
confidence interval for the estimate of 90 percent is 83 to 94 
percent. We estimate that 92 percent of local areas used local 
initiatives to identify occupations that are projected to grow for at 
least one of these reasons. The confidence interval for the estimate 
of 92 percent is 86 to 96 percent. 

[30] Real-time labor market information aggregates and analyzes online 
job postings to provide "real-time" information about the hiring and 
skill needs of employers. The confidence interval for the estimate of 
90 percent is 84 to 95 percent. 

[31] These results are similar to our findings in 2005 that most WIBs 
required participants to complete activities (such as taking skill 
assessments or tests and gathering information about the occupation 
for which they wanted training) to demonstrate their need for 
training. See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-650]. 

[32] In 79 percent of these areas, such employment prospects were 
located in neighboring areas. The confidence interval for the estimate 
of 50 percent is 44 to 57 percent; for the estimate of 79 percent it 
is 67 to 88 percent. 

[33] The confidence interval for the estimate of 62 percent is 49 to 
75 percent. 

[34] The confidence interval for the estimate of 57 percent is 50 to 
63 percent. 

[35] Specifically, we estimate that 56 percent of these areas guided 
fewer participants toward training and 33 percent of these areas 
guided fewer participants toward their first choice of training. The 
confidence interval for the estimate of 38 percent is 32 to 45 
percent; for the estimate of 56 percent it is 45 to 67 percent; and 
for the estimate of 33 percent it is 21 to 47 percent.  

[36] The confidence interval for the estimate of 80 percent is 73 to 
86 percent.  

[37] Local areas reported the occupations that employers in their 
areas had difficulty filling. These hard-to-fill occupations are not 
generalizable to the national level. 

[38] The confidence interval for the estimate of 81 percent is 72 to 
87 percent.  

[39] Performance measures are being considered as part of WIA 
reauthorization proposals. Three of those proposals would add a 
performance measure on the basic skill gains of participants who are 
in an education or training program that leads to a credential or 
employment. See Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills 
Act (SKILLS Act), H.R. 803, 113th Cong. (2013); Workforce Investment 
Act of 2013, H.R. 798, 113TH Cong. (2013); and Workforce Investment 
Act of 2013, S. 1356, 113th Cong. (2013). 

[40] DOL offers "learn and earn" strategies--such as on-the-job 
training and registered apprenticeships--that allow participants to 
earn money while they are receiving training. 

[41] Specifically, DOL collaborates with Education's Office of 
Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) and HHS's Administration for 
Children and Families. Also, Education's OVAE funds the Designing 
Instruction for Career Pathways Initiative, which assists state and 
local education providers in developing career pathways programs for 
adults by providing technical assistance, policy briefs, and research 
on program effectiveness. 

[42] Other DOL grant programs also encourage career pathways 
strategies: Trade Adjustment Assistance and Community College Career 
Training Grants program and the H-1B Technical Skills Training Grant 
Program.

[43] This study will use a random assignment research design to 
evaluate the career pathways programs. Participants will be assigned 
at random to one of two groups: the "treatment" group that will 
participate in the career pathways program and the "control" group 
that will not, although control group members may receive other 
services available in the community.  

[44] GAO, Internal Control Standards: Internal Control Management and 
Evaluation Tool, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-1008G] 
(Washington, D.C.: August 2001). 

[45] DOL's list included WIBs in all 50 states, the District of 
Columbia, and the following U.S. territories: the Federal States of 
Micronesia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the 
Virgin Islands. As previously noted, most states have one state WIB 
that is responsible for overseeing multiple local WIBs. Some states 
have one statewide WIB and no local WIBs. 

[46] We stratified the population into the following 10 U.S. Census 
Bureau regions: New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, West 
North Central, South Atlantic, East South Central, West South Central, 
Mountain, Pacific, and U.S. Territories. 

[47] The weighted response rate was 73.3 percent. 

[48] We defined "primarily urban" WIBs as those that have more urban 
than rural American Job Centers in their local areas, and "primarily 
rural" WIBs as those that have more rural than urban American Job 
Centers in their local areas. 

[49] For the urban WIB in Michigan, we randomly selected a WIB from 
the subgroup of urban WIBs that were part of the Workforce 
Intelligence Network, a consortium of community colleges, WIBs, and 
economic development partners that works with employers to identify 
and respond to their employment needs. 

[50] New Jersey officials told us that all the WIBs in their state 
were primarily urban. As a result, we randomly selected two primarily 
urban WIBs to interview in this state. 

[51] BLS officials noted that OES data are more reliable at the state 
or national level than at the local level. 

[52] The standard errors associated with regional estimates of 
unemployment rates by occupation from the CPS were also over 20 
percent for some occupations. 

[53] The SOC system contains 840 detailed occupations according to its 
website. Detailed occupations in the SOC that have similar job duties, 
and in some cases skills, education, and/or training, are grouped 
together to form 461 broad occupations, 97 minor groups, and 23 major 
groups. Information on the SOC can be found at [hyperlink, 
http://www.bls.gov/soc]. 

[54] The DMTF lists associated job titles for detailed SOC 
occupations. Each of these titles is a direct match to a single SOC 
occupation. All workers with a job title listed in the DMTF are 
classified in only one detailed SOC occupation code. 

[55] Manufacturing is classified as sectors 31-33 in the North 
American Industrial Classification System. 

[End of section]  

GAO’s Mission:  

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:  

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.”  

Order by Phone:  

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].  

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537.  

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information.  

Connect with GAO:  

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].  

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:  

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470.  

Congressional Relations:  

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548.  

Public Affairs:  

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548.  

[End of document]