This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-549T 
entitled 'Senior Community Service Employment Program: Labor Has Made 
Progress Implementing Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000, but 
Challenges Remain' which was released on April 6, 2006. 

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. 

Testimony: 

Before the Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. DST: 

Thursday, April 6, 2006: 

Senior Community Service Employment Program: 

Labor Has Made Progress Implementing Older Americans Act Amendments of 
2000, but Challenges Remain: 

Statement of Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director, Education, Workforce, and 
Income Security Issues: 

GAO-06-549T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-549T, a report to Special Committee on Aging, U.S. 
Senate: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The aging of the baby boom generation and increased life expectancy 
pose serious challenges for our nation. Older adults often must re-
enter the workforce in order to remain self-sufficient. The Senior 
Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) is the only federal 
program that is specifically designed to assist low-income older adults 
by providing part-time community service jobs and training to prepare 
for employment. Since passage of the 2000 OAA Amendments, SCSEP has 
also increasingly focused on promoting economic self-sufficiency 
through placement in unsubsidized employment. In 2005, Congress 
appropriated about $437 million to serve about 100,000 older workers. 
Administered by the Department of Labor, SCSEP is implemented through 
69 grantees, including 13 national organizations and 56 state and 
territorial agencies. 

The Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging asked GAO to (1) 
determine what effect the OAA Amendments have had on the distribution 
of SCSEP funds to national and state grantees, (2) describe the 
progress Labor has made in implementing the enhanced performance 
accountability system, and (3) identify the challenges faced by 
national and state grantees in managing the SCSEP program in light of 
the OAA amendments and Labor’s governing regulations. 

What GAO Found: 

The 2000 OAA Amendments have had little impact on the distribution of 
funds between national and state grantees, with national grantees 
continuing to receive approximately 78 percent of the funding and 
states about 22 percent. However, the distribution of funding among 
national grantees has changed substantially as a result of Labor’s open 
competition for the national grants portion of SCSEP funding held in 
2002. 

Labor has taken steps to establish an enhanced performance 
accountability system for SCSEP, but has yet to implement some features 
fully. For example, Labor has introduced the new performance measures 
required by the 2000 OAA Amendments, but program year 2005 – which ends 
on June 30, 2006 -- is the first year for which grantees will be held 
accountable for meeting their goals. Labor has also implemented an 
early version of a data collection system to track grantee performance, 
but the final Internet-based version is not yet available. 

Changes to the SCSEP eligibility criteria and difficulties coordinating 
with the Workforce Investment Act one-stop system have posed challenges 
to SCSEP grantees. Although the 2000 OAA Amendments do not contain 
provisions changing the eligibility criteria for SCSEP, Labor has 
modified some eligibility criteria in an effort to better target 
individuals most in need of SCSEP services. However, our work suggests 
that these changes may have excluded some low-income older workers from 
the program who would have otherwise been eligible for SCSEP. Finally, 
we found that despite provisions in the 2000 OAA amendments to 
strengthen connections between SCSEP and the Workforce Investment Act 
(WIA), problems coordinating with WIA providers and obtaining intensive 
and training services for older workers at one-stop centers persist. 

Challenges to Managing SCSEP Cited by Grantees: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-549T. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Sigurd R. Nilsen, (202) 
512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Older Americans Act 
Amendments of 2000 as they relate to the Senior Community Service 
Employment Program (SCSEP). GAO has conducted several studies related 
to older worker issues,[Footnote 1] and my testimony today is based on 
work that you requested concerning how the Older Americans Act (OAA) 
Amendments of 2000 have affected SCSEP. 

The U.S. economy is experiencing a dramatic demographic change with the 
aging of the baby boom generation (people born between 1946 and 1964), 
the older of which are turning age 60 this year. Older Americans are 
expected to represent a growing share of the population and have longer 
life expectancy than previous generations. Many older adults may choose 
to remain in the workforce or need to continue working for financial 
reasons. Furthermore, the number of older adults living in poverty is 
expected to increase significantly. By 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau 
estimates that 6.7 million persons aged 55 and older will be below the 
poverty level, a 22 percent increase over the number living in poverty 
in 2000. This number is expected to increase to 9 million by 2015. 

SCSEP is the only federal employment and training program targeted to 
low-income older adults. Originally authorized in 1965 by the Older 
Americans Act, SCSEP is administered by the Department of Labor (Labor) 
to promote part-time community service activities for unemployed, low- 
income individuals 55 years and older who have poor employment 
prospects. Under the OAA Amendments of 2000, the program has evolved 
from being primarily focused on community service to a program that 
increasingly emphasizes economic self-sufficiency through unsubsidized 
employment. The amendments also made other changes to SCSEP including 
revising the funding distribution formula and establishing a 
performance accountability system. Furthermore, in anticipation of the 
upcoming reauthorization of Title V of OAA, the administration has 
proposed additional changes to SCSEP. In fiscal year 2005, Congress 
appropriated approximately $437 million for SCSEP that Labor 
distributed to 69 grantees: 13 national grantees (consisting of 12 
national non-profit organizations and 1 federal agency) and 56 state 
and territorial agencies. These funds support about 61,000 SCSEP 
positions through which approximately 100,000 participants are served 
each year. The grantees typically place older workers in part-time 
community service positions, such as nurse's aides, teacher aides, 
librarians, clerical workers, and day care assistants, so that they can 
gain on-the-job experience and prepare for unsubsidized employment. 

My testimony today will address (1) changes in the distribution of 
SCSEP funds to national and state grantees as a result of the Older 
Americans Act Amendments of 2000, (2) the progress that Labor has made 
in implementing an enhanced performance accountability system, and (3) 
the challenges that national and state grantees face in managing SCSEP. 

In summary, our work shows that the Older Americans Act Amendments of 
2000 have had little effect on the distribution of funds between 
national and state grantees, with the national grantees continuing to 
receive approximately 78 percent of the funding and state grantees 
about 22 percent. Since the amendments took effect in 2000, SCSEP 
appropriations have experienced only minor fluctuations and 
correspondingly, the total number of positions authorized for 
participants has remained generally constant. However, the distribution 
of funding and positions among national grantees has changed 
substantially as a result of an open competition that Labor held in 
2002. Further, although the amendments were passed in 2000, Labor has 
yet to fully establish a performance accountability system. For 
example, program year 2005 - which ends on June 30, 2006 - is the first 
year for which grantees will be held accountable for their performance 
and the final Internet-based version of Labor's data collection system 
is not yet online. In addition, although the 2000 OAA amendments did 
not contain provisions changing the eligibility criteria for SCSEP, 
Labor modified several eligibility criteria that, according to national 
and state grantees, have greatly decreased the pool of older workers 
who are eligible for the program. Labor officials told us that the 
changes were intended to ensure that the program targeted those most in 
need of SCSEP services. However, our work suggests that these changes 
may have excluded some low-income older workers from the program who 
would have otherwise been eligible for SCSEP. Finally, we found that 
despite provisions in the 2000 OAA amendments to strengthen connections 
between SCSEP and the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), problems 
coordinating with WIA providers and obtaining intensive and training 
services for older workers at one-stop centers persist. 

We based our work, in part, on a survey of the 13 national 
organizations and 52 state grantees (including the District of Columbia 
and Puerto Rico). We received responses from all national and state 
grantees. We also interviewed Labor officials and representatives from 
four national organizations that received nearly two-thirds of the 
SCSEP funds allocated to national organizations in program year 
2005[Footnote 2]: AARP, Experience Works, Mature Services, and Senior 
Service America. In addition, we visited five states--California, 
Florida, Idaho, Ohio, and Oregon--and interviewed officials responsible 
for administering SCSEP. We used several criteria in selecting site 
visit locations, including geographic dispersion within the United 
States, relative size of the state population, proportion of the state 
population that is both elderly and below the poverty level, proportion 
of the state population that is over the age of 55, and the amount of 
SCSEP funding allocated to each state during program year 2004 (July 1, 
2004 to June 30, 2005). We performed our work between July 2005 and 
March 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. 

Background: 

SCSEP, as authorized under the OAA Amendments of 2000, promotes part- 
time opportunities in community service for unemployed low-income 
persons who are at least 55 years old and have poor employment 
prospects. The program is also designed to foster economic self- 
sufficiency by assisting older workers in transitioning to unsubsidized 
employment. Administered by Labor for over 30 years, the program 
operates in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin 
Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The 
program is administered through grants awarded to national 
organizations as well as state and territorial agencies. (See appendix 
I for a listing of national grantees and funds and positions awarded in 
program year 2005.) In program year 2005, approximately $437 million 
was appropriated to support about 61,000 SCSEP positions through which 
approximately 100,000 participants are served. (See appendix II for a 
listing of funds and positions awarded by state in program year 2005). 

SCSEP serves unemployed persons who are 55 years or older whose family 
incomes are no more than 125 percent of the federal poverty level. 
Participants are placed in part-time community service assignments in a 
local nonprofit organization or public-sector agency to gain on-the-job 
experience and prepare for unsubsidized employment. Program 
participants receive training and work experience in a wide variety of 
occupations, including nurse's aides, teacher aides, librarians, 
clerical workers, and day care assistants. Program participants are 
paid the highest federal, state, or local applicable minimum wage, or 
the prevailing rate of pay for persons employed in similar occupations 
by the same employer. The OAA Amendments require that at least 75 
percent of SCSEP funds be used to subsidize participants' wages and 
fringe benefits and no more than 13.5 percent of the funds may be used 
for administrative expenses. The remaining funds may be used for other 
program costs such as assessments, training, job placement assistance, 
and supportive services.[Footnote 3] 

The OAA Amendments of 2000 were designed to make a number of changes to 
SCSEP. The amendments contained provisions to: 

* Establish unsubsidized employment as a program goal, while 
maintaining the community service aspect of the program. 

* Establish a performance accountability system that held grantees 
accountable for meeting specific performance measures, including 
placement and retention of participants in unsubsidized employment, 
community services provided, customer satisfaction, and number of 
persons served--particularly those with the greatest economic and 
social need or those with poor employment history or prospects, and 
those over age 60. 

* Improve coordination between SCSEP and WIA. 

* Strengthen administrative procedures by defining administrative and 
program costs and applying uniform cost principles. 

In addition, the amendments revised the distribution formula by 
specifying that the first $35 million in funding above the amount to 
maintain current level of program year 2000 activities be allocated 75 
percent to state grantees and 25 percent to national grantees. Any 
additional funds above $35 million will be allocated evenly between 
state and national grantees. 

OAA Amendments Have Had Minimal Impact On Funding Distribution Between 
National And State Grantees: 

The OAA Amendments have had little effect on the distribution of funds 
between national and state grantees, with the national grantees 
continuing to receive approximately 78 percent of the funding and state 
grantees about 22 percent. Since the amendments took effect in 2000, 
the SCSEP appropriation has experienced only minor fluctuations and 
correspondingly, the total number of positions has remained largely 
constant. However, the distribution of funding and positions among 
national grantees has changed substantially. An open competition for 
national SCSEP positions held in 2002 increased the total number of 
national grantees from 10 to 13 (eliminating 1 incumbent grantee and 
introducing 4 new grantees) and reshuffled funding and positions among 
existing grantees. In program year 2005, national grantees operated in 
all states (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) except 
Alaska, Delaware, and Hawaii. Approximately two-thirds of both national 
and state grantee positions are located in metropolitan areas. However, 
the percentage of positions in metropolitan areas varied widely among 
national grantees. For example, three national grantees administer more 
than 90 percent of their SCSEP positions in metropolitan counties, 
while two have about 40 percent of their positions in metropolitan 
counties. 

OAA Amendments Have Had Little Effect on the Distribution of SCSEP 
Funds: 

The revision of the funding formula outlined in the OAA Amendments has 
had little impact on the distribution of funds between national and 
state grantees. The formula takes effect only when SCSEP funding for 
national and state grantees rises above program year 2000 levels of 
approximately $423 million.[Footnote 4] Because the SCSEP appropriation 
has remained relatively constant over the past 5 years, the 
distribution of funds between national and state grantees has also 
experienced little change. In each program year since 2000, 
approximately 78 percent of the SCSEP funding for grantees was 
allocated to national grantees and 22 percent was allocated to state 
grantees (see figure 1). 

Figure 1: Distribution of SCSEP Funding for Program Years 2000-2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Excludes funding for the two national grantees that serve 
minority communities. These grantees receive a separate allotment from 
Labor and are not subject to the revised funding formula outlined in 
the 2000 OAA Amendments. 

[End of figure] 

For program year 2005, nearly $437 million in SCSEP appropriations 
funded 61,047 positions--160 fewer than were funded in program year 
2000.[Footnote 5] Slight funding increases from program years 2002 to 
2004 provided for as much as $4.6 million in additional annual funding 
for national and state grantees. Labor allotted approximately 75 
percent of this amount to state grantees and 25 percent to national 
grantees in accordance with the revised distribution formula. However, 
these funding increases did not markedly alter the overall distribution 
between national and state grantees. 

2002 Competition Reshuffled Funds and Positions among National 
Grantees: 

Labor's 2002 open competition for the national grants portion of SCSEP 
funding increased the number of national grantees administering SCSEP 
and substantially reshuffled positions and funding among existing 
grantees. Labor decided to conduct the competition in order to ensure 
that the most qualified organizations were awarded grants, to open the 
grantee community to new organizations, and to provide better services 
to SCSEP participants. The competition--the first of its kind in 
SCSEP's history--yielded 68 applications. A three-member Labor review 
panel evaluated each application and scored it according to the 
applicant's plan for program design and services, coordination and 
oversight, and management structure and fiscal integrity. Based on 
these scores, Labor ranked each applicant, deemed that 13 applicants 
scored in a competitive range making them eligible to receive grant 
awards, and allotted positions by county to grantees on a winner-takes- 
all basis. Specifically, the highest ranked applicant received all the 
positions it requested, and each subsequent applicant received all 
positions not previously claimed by a higher ranked applicant. All 13 
competitive applicants were eventually awarded positions. The 
competition produced four new national grantees, increasing the total 
number from 10 to 13. One incumbent grantee, the National Urban League, 
was not awarded a grant to continue administering SCSEP. The 
competition also resulted in a significant reshuffling of funds and 
positions among incumbent grantees. Of the nine incumbent national 
grantees that were awarded continuing grants, two gained positions, and 
seven lost positions (see table 1). 

Table 1: National Grantee Positions Before and After 2002 Competition: 

Incumbent Grantees that Gained Positions: 

National Grantee: AARP Foundation; 
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 7,097; 
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): 10,487; 
Change: + 3,390. 

National Grantee: National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc; 
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre- competition): 1,831; 
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): 2,140; 
Change: + 309. 

Incumbent grantees that lost positions: 

National Grantee: Experience Works, Inc; 
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 14,915; 
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): 12,051; 
Change: - 2,864. 

National Grantee: National Council on the Aging, Inc; 
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 5,334; 
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): 3,069; 
Change: - 2,265. 

National Grantee: National Urban League; 
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 2,163; 
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): (not selected); 
Change: - 2,163. 

National Grantee: Senior Service America, Inc; 
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 9,015; 
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post- competition): 7,017; 
Change: - 1,998. 

National Grantee: USDA Forest Service; 
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 3,998; 
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): 2,863; 
Change: - 1,135. 

National Grantee: Asociacion Nacional Pro Personas Mayores; 
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 1,864; 
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): 1,090; 
Change: - 774. 

National Grantee: National Indian Council on Aging; 
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 867; 
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post- competition): 862; 
Change: - 5. 

National Grantee: National Asian Pacific Center on Aging; 
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 857; 
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post- competition): 856; 
Change: - 1. 

New grantees: 

National Grantee: SER - Jobs for Progress National, Inc; 
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): (new grantee); 
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): 3,681; 
Change: + 3,681. 

National Grantee: Easter Seals, Inc; 
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): (new grantee); 
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post- competition): 2,267; 
Change: + 2,267. 

National Grantee: Mature Services, Inc; 
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): (new grantee); 
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post- competition): 774; 
Change: + 774. 

National Grantee: National Able Network; 
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): (new grantee); 
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post- competition): 764; 
Change: + 764. 

National Grantee: TOTAL; 
Program Year 2002 Positions (Pre-competition): 47,941; 
Program Year 2003 Positions (Post-competition): 47,921; 
Change: - 20. 

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Department of Labor, 
Employment and Training Administration. 

[End of table] 

Labor determines the amount of funding to be allocated to grantees 
based on a "cost per authorized position" outlined in the OAA 
Amendments. As a result, following the 2002 competition, the 13 
successful grantees received funding approximately equal to the number 
of positions they were awarded times $7,153--the pre-determined cost 
per authorized position. Among incumbent grantees, two gained 
additional funding and seven lost funding. AARP Foundation gained more 
than $24 million in additional funds, while Experience Works, Inc. lost 
$20.5 million in funding. Altogether, the four new grantees received 
approximately $54 million in SCSEP funding (see table 2). 

Table 2: National Grantee Funding Before and After 2002 Competition: 

Incumbent Grantees that Gained Funding: 

National Grantee[A]: AARP Foundation; 
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): $50,764,841; 
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $75,018,059; 
Change: $24,253,218. 

National Grantee[A]: National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc; 
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre- competition): $13,097,143; 
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $15,310,083; 
Change: $2,212,940. 

Incumbent grantees that lost funding

National Grantee[A]: Experience Works, Inc; 
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): $106,686,995; 
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post- competition): $86,202150; 
Change: -$20,484,845. 

National Grantee[A]: National Council on the Aging, Inc; 
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): $38,154,102; 
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $21,952,313; 
Change: - $16,201,789. 

National Grantee[A]: National Urban League; 
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): $15,471,939; 
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post- competition): (not selected); 
Change: -$15,471,939. 

National Grantee[A]: Senior Service America, Inc; 
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): $64,484,295; 
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $50,190,834; 
Change: - $14,293,461. 

National Grantee[A]: USDA Forest Service; 
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): $28,597,694; 
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post- competition): $20,483,709; 
Change: -$8,113,985. 

National Grantee[A]: Asociacion Nacional Pro Personas Mayores; 
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre- competition): $13,333,192; 
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $7,793,500; 
Change: - $5,539,692. 

National Grantee[A]: National Indian Council on Aging; 
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): $6,201,651; 
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $6,165,886; 
Change: -$35,765. 

National Grantee[A]: National Asian Pacific Center on Aging; 
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre- competition): $6,130,121; 
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $6,120,400; 
Change: - $9,721. 

New grantees: 

National Grantee[A]: SER - Jobs for Progress National, Inc; 
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre- competition): (new grantee); 
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $26,319,150; 
Change: $26,319,150. 

National Grantee[A]: Easter Seals, Inc; 
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): (new grantee); 
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post- competition): $16,219,388; 
Change: $16,219,388. 

National Grantee[A]: Mature Services, Inc; 
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): (new grantee); 
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post- competition): $5,536,422; 
Change: $5,536,422. 

National Grantee[A]: National Able Network; 
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): (new grantee); 
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post- competition): $5,462,600; 
Change: $5,462,600. 

TOTAL; 
Program Year 2002 Funding (Pre-competition): $342,921,973; 
Program Year 2003 Funding (Post-competition): $342,774,494; 
Change: -$147,479. 

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Department of Labor, 
Employment and Training Administration. 

[End of table] 

On March 2, 2006, Labor announced an open competition for program year 
2006 national grantee funding. This announcement is consistent with 
Labor's current proposal for the reauthorization of SCSEP, which 
recommends eliminating performance sanctions in favor of holding a 
competition for grants every three years. Using similar criteria to 
those used in the 2002 competition, Labor plans to award no more than 
20 grants to national grantees, including at least 1 grant to an Indian 
and Native American organization and at least 1 grant to an Asian 
Pacific Islander organization. Labor is specifically seeking 
organizations that are able to foster partnerships with one-stop career 
centers and community colleges and that promote private employment 
through high-growth job opportunities. In order to increase program 
effectiveness and achieve economies of scale, Labor has consolidated 
the geographic areas over which grantees will administer SCSEP for the 
upcoming program year. When requesting positions, potential grantees 
must apply for at least 10 percent of a state's allocation, or $1.6 
million, whichever is greater. Furthermore, applicants that apply for 
more than one county in a state must request contiguous counties, and 
except in the cases of very large counties, they must apply for all the 
positions in a county. 

Equal Share of National and State Positions Located in Metropolitan 
Areas: 

For program year 2005, slightly more than two-thirds of both national 
and state grantee positions are located in metropolitan areas. National 
grantees administer SCSEP in every state except Alaska, Delaware, and 
Hawaii, while state grantees operate SCSEP in all 50 states, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.[Footnote 6] Individual national 
grantees operate in as many as 39 states (Experience Works, Inc.) and 
as few as 2 states (Mature Services, Inc.) The share of positions in 
metropolitan areas varies widely among national grantees. Three 
grantees administer more than 90 percent of their SCSEP positions in 
metropolitan counties, while two grantees have fewer than half of their 
positions in metropolitan counties (see table 3). 

Table 3: Summary of SCSEP Positions for Program Year 2005: 

Total grantees; 
Total SCSEP Positions: 60,590[B]; 
Number of States Served[A]: 52; 
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 71. 

State grantees; 
Total SCSEP Positions: 12,982; 
Number of States Served[A]: 52; 
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: : 69. 

National grantees; 
Total SCSEP Positions: 47,608; 
Number of States Served[A]: 49; 
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 72. 

Grantee: AARP Foundation; 
Total SCSEP Positions: 10,362; 
Number of States Served[A]: 29; 
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 96. 

Grantee: Asociacion Nacional Pro Personas Mayores; 
Total SCSEP Positions: 1,075; 
Number of States Served[A]: 6; 
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 100. 

Grantee: Easter Seals, Inc; 
Total SCSEP Positions: 2,248; 
Number of States Served[A]: 9; 
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 85. 

Grantee: Experience Works, Inc; 
Total SCSEP Positions: 12,029; 
Number of States Served[A]: 39; 
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 41. 

Grantee: Mature Services, Inc; 
Total SCSEP Positions: 771; 
Number of States Served[A]: 2; 
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 89. 

Grantee: National Able Network; 
Total SCSEP Positions: 760; 
Number of States Served[A]: 4; 
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 58. 

Grantee: National Asian Pacific Center on Aging; 
Total SCSEP Positions: 836; 
Number of States Served[A]: 8; 
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 100. 

Grantee: National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc; 
Total SCSEP Positions: 2,129; 
Number of States Served[A]: 11; 
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 82. 

Grantee: National Council on the Aging, Inc; 
Total SCSEP Positions: 3,020; 
Number of States Served[A]: 12; 
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 80. 

Grantee: National Indian Council on Aging; 
Total SCSEP Positions: 842; 
Number of States Served[A]: 15; 
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 62. 

Grantee: Senior Service America, Inc; 
Total SCSEP Positions: 7,030; 
Number of States Served[A]: 24; 
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 84. 

Grantee: SER - Jobs for Progress National, Inc; 
Total SCSEP Positions: 3,658; 
Number of States Served[A]: 16; 
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 79. 

Grantee: USDA Forest Service; 
Total SCSEP Positions: 2,848; 
Number of States Served[A]: 38; 
Percent of Positions in Metropolitan Counties: 39. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor PY2005 equitable 
distribution data and OMB metropolitan status data. 

[A] Includes all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico: 

[B] Excludes the 457 positions allotted to the territories. 

[End of table] 

Labor Has Yet To Fully Implement An Enhanced Performance Accountability 
System: 

Labor has taken steps to establish an enhanced performance 
accountability system for SCSEP, but has yet to implement some features 
fully. While Labor has introduced the new performance measures that the 
OAA amendments of 2000 required, program year 2005 --which ends on June 
30, 2006 - is the first year for which grantees will be held 
accountable for their performance. Labor has also implemented an early 
version of a data collection system to capture performance information, 
but the final version is not yet available to grantees in its intended 
online format. In addition, Labor has recently undertaken a broad 
assessment of SCSEP on such issues as participant outcomes, program 
costs, and grantee challenges, but has not yet issued a report. 

New Performance Measures Were Recently Implemented: 

Labor has implemented new performance measures, as required by the OAA 
Amendments of 2000, and will begin sanctioning grantees that 
demonstrate poor performance for the current program year - 2005 - 
which ends on June 30, 2006. After Labor issued final regulations for 
SCSEP in April 2004, it instituted practice measures for program year 
2004, as grantees transitioned to the new data collection and reporting 
requirements. Labor used the resulting performance data to help set 
baseline goals for grantees to meet during program year 2005. 

For program year 2005, four SCSEP measures will contribute to a 
grantee's overall performance assessment, according to Labor. They 
include: 

Placement: the number of participants attaining unsubsidized 
employment, either full-or part-time, for at least 30 days of the first 
90 days after exiting the program, divided by the number of authorized 
SCSEP positions. 

Employment Retention: the rate of retention in unsubsidized employment 
6 months after placement. 

Service Level: the number of a grantee's participants divided by the 
number of the grantee's authorized positions. 

Service to Most-in-Need: the percentage of participants who are at 
least 60 years old and who have at least one of several additional 
barriers to employment, such as language barriers, poor employment 
history, or a physical or mental disability. 

Labor officials told us they plan to assess grantees on their aggregate 
performance across these four SCSEP performance measures. A grantee 
satisfies its overall performance goal if it attains an average score 
across the four measures of at least 80 percent of the target goals. 
Thus, a grantee could meet its performance requirements by attaining 
less than 80 percent of some goals but more than 80 percent of the 
others. For example, Labor's data show that one state achieved 47 
percent of its placement goal but performed well enough on the other 
measures to receive an average score well above the 80 percent 
threshold for satisfactory performance. According to Labor, grantees 
varied in their ability to meet goals for individual measures during 
the transitional period of program year 2004. (See appendix III for a 
listing of the program year 2004 results compared to the performance 
goals for each grantee.) However, Labor officials said that most 
grantees managed to meet the 80 percent threshold for their overall 
performance goal. (See appendix IV for results for each of the 
grantees.) They also stated that, based on Labor's assessment of data 
from the first 2 quarters of the current year, most grantees appear to 
be on track for meeting their performance goals for program year 2005. 

Sanctions for poor performance are similar for state and national 
grantees and will begin after the first year of not meeting the 80 
percent threshold for overall performance. If performance does not 
improve, sanctions will increase in severity after the second and third 
consecutive years. After the first year of poor performance, a grantee 
must submit a corrective action plan within 160 days of the end of the 
program year. In addition, Labor will provide the grantee with 
technical assistance to help correct the problem. A second consecutive 
year of failing to meet performance goals will generate a competition 
for 25 percent of the grantee's funds for the following program year. 
If a grantee continues to perform poorly for a third year, another 
competition will result for the remaining amount of the grantee's 
funding. Furthermore, in addition to meeting their own goals, national 
grantees must meet the performance goals of each state in which they 
administer the program. If they fail to meet the state goals, Labor 
will require a corrective action plan after the first year of poor 
performance and may take other appropriate actions, including 
transferring responsibility for the project to other grantees. National 
or state grantees that fall short of one performance target but 
otherwise meet their aggregate goals will not be subject to sanction; 
Labor will instead provide them with technical assistance related to 
that performance issue. 

In addition, Labor requires grantees to report on the customer 
satisfaction of participants, host agencies, and employers by surveying 
each group. Although poor performance on this measure will result in 
technical assistance rather than sanctions, Labor officials told us 
that to date customer satisfaction has been very high. While grantees 
must also report the number of community service hours participants 
contribute, Labor officials told us that they have struggled to create 
a measurable indicator for community service and do not plan to 
sanction performance in this area. 

SCSEP grantees must also collect data to support several common 
measures as part of a government-wide initiative to provide comparable 
performance information across federal programs with similar goals and 
operations.[Footnote 7] For job training and employment programs 
serving adults, the three common measures include entered employment, 
retention, and average earnings. Thus, between the SCSEP measures and 
the common measures, grantees must collect and report on data for 9 
different performance measures. The SCSEP placement and retention 
measures overlap somewhat with the common measures for entered 
employment and retention, although the SCSEP measures, as defined by 
the OAA Amendments of 2000, are computed differently. (See table 4.) 
Specifically, the SCSEP placement measure is calculated relative to 
each grantee's number of authorized positions, while the common measure 
for entered employment is based on the number of participants who exit 
the program. Likewise, the SCSEP retention measure evaluates employment 
6 months after placement, while the common measure for retention 
assesses a participant's employment in both the second and third 
quarters after exit. 

Table 4: Comparison Of SCSEP Placement And Retention Measures With 
Common Measures For Entered Employment And Retention: 

SCSEP Performance Measure: Placement: the number of participants whose 
placement into unsubsidized employment became final during the quarter, 
divided by the total number of authorized community service positions; 
Common Measure: Entered Employment: the number of participants employed 
in the first quarter after exiting the program, divided by the total 
number of participants who exit the program during the quarter. 

SCSEP Performance Measure: Retention: the number of participants placed 
into unsubsidized employment and who are still employed 6 months after 
the date of placement, divided by the number of participants placed 
into unsubsidized employment; 
Common Measure: Retention: of those participants who are employed in 
the first quarter after exiting the program, the number employed in 
both the second and third quarters after exit, divided by the number of 
participants employed in the first quarter after the quarter of exit. 

[End of table] 

Grantees are not subject to sanction for performance on the common 
measures, which the Office of Management and Budget will use to 
evaluate the overall effectiveness of SCSEP. However, the 
administration's legislative proposal for reauthorizing SCSEP supports 
using the common measures. Additional measures, such as community 
services provided, could be tracked as secondary outcomes. 

New Data Collection System Is in Interim Stage: 

Labor has designed a data collection system to capture performance 
information, but has not yet implemented the Internet-based version. 
The agency is in the process of moving to an Internet-based system that 
incorporates the new performance data required under the 2000 OAA 
amendments. In order to capture baseline performance data in program 
year 2004, Labor rolled out an early, non-Internet version of its data 
collection system in time to receive data from the first quarter of 
that program year. Although it collects the required performance data, 
this interim system is limited in its usefulness for helping to manage 
the program. For example, grantees are unable to access their quarterly 
progress reports directly and must wait for Labor to process and send 
the data to them. Likewise, grantees receive reports that notify them 
of errors in their data submissions, but the reports do not identify 
which records are problematic. Moreover, since the initial roll-out, 
Labor has incorporated several modifications to the system and required 
data reporting elements. Currently, grantees either use the early 
version of Labor's new system or continue to use their own databases 
while they wait for the new Internet-based data collection system to 
undergo testing and be rolled out. If procurement and technical 
processes go as planned, Labor hopes to fully implement the Internet-
based data collection system by mid-May 2006. 

Labor has provided grantees with guidance and technical assistance on 
implementing the new data collection system. In addition to issuing 
written guidance, Labor and its contractors have conducted 
demonstrations and offer ongoing direct assistance, including an 
Internet-based forum for grantee questions on implementing the new 
system. 

Labor Has Initiated a Broad Assessment of SCSEP: 

Labor recently undertook a broad assessment of SCSEP, which it has yet 
to complete. In 2004, Labor contracted with DAH Consulting, Inc. and 
Social Policy Research to conduct an assessment of SCSEP. In addition 
to assessing the success of grantees in finding useful community 
service assignments and increasing unsubsidized employment, Labor 
planned to examine issues of participant training, coordination with 
the one-stop system, program costs, outcomes, and challenges faced by 
grantees. The project design included site visits to a sample of 9 of 
the 13 national grantees, as well as 10 state grantees. An additional 
nine state grantees were interviewed by telephone. As of March 2006, 
Labor officials had received a draft of the study but sent it back to 
DAH with requested changes, and they had not provided us with 
preliminary results. 

SCSEP Eligibility and Coordination With WIA Are Among The Major 
Challenges Grantees Face: 

Changes to SCSEP eligibility criteria and coordination difficulties 
with WIA and the one-stop system pose major challenges to SCSEP 
grantees in managing the program. The 2000 OAA amendments do not 
contain provisions changing the eligibility criteria for SCSEP. Labor, 
however, modified some eligibility criteria to reflect the Department's 
philosophy that the program should be better targeted to those 
individuals most in need of SCSEP's intensive services. According to 
national and state grantees, changes that Labor made in SCSEP 
eligibility requirements have greatly reduced the pool of older workers 
who are eligible for SCSEP services. For example, many older adults are 
no longer eligible to receive SCSEP service because Labor has changed 
how it determines a person's income for eligibility into the program. 
Other older adults who are below the poverty level but who work part- 
time or seasonally to supplement their income are no longer eligible to 
receive SCSEP services if they have these jobs at the time of 
application. In addition, the majority of the 13 national and 52 state 
grantees identified coordinating with WIA providers, obtaining 
intensive and training services at one-stop centers, implementing 
Labor's new data collection system, and meeting new performance 
measures as being major challenges to managing the SCSEP program. 

Changes in Eligibility Criteria Have Reduced Number of Eligible 
Applicants: 

According to national and state grantees, changes in SCSEP eligibility 
requirements have greatly decreased the pool of low-income older 
workers who are eligible for program services. While, the OAA 
Amendments do not define what constitutes income, Labor decided to use 
the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS) as the 
standard for determining income eligibility for SCSEP. In the preamble 
to its April 2004 regulations, Labor set forth its intent to use the 
income categories collected in the CPS as the SCSEP definition of 
income for determining program eligibility. After receiving feedback 
from grantees, Labor decided to exclude certain forms of income. For 
example, Labor excluded disability benefits--except SSDI--as well as 
supplementary security income, workers' compensation, public 
assistance, child support, and several other sources of income. Labor 
issued guidance in April 2004 and again in January 2005 to reflect and 
clarify policy changes to SCSEP eligibility criteria that were 
previously established in guidance issued in December 1995. Major 
changes include what is to be counted as income, what time period is to 
be used for the purposes of calculating income, and whether applicants 
must be unemployed at time of application. (See table 5.) 

Table 5: Changes to Eligibility Criteria: 

Changes to Eligibility Criteria: Social security income; 
Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June 1995: 25 percent of social 
security income excluded from income calculations; 
Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, issued January 2005: No 
exclusion, all social security income counted in income calculations. 

Changes to Eligibility Criteria: Social security disability insurance 
(SSDI); 
Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June 1995: Excluded from income 
calculations; 
Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, issued January 2005: 
Included in income calculations (other disability benefits excluded). 

Changes to Eligibility Criteria: Unemployment compensation; 
Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June 1995: Excluded from income 
calculations; 
Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, issued January 2005: 
Included in income calculations. 

Changes to Eligibility Criteria: Veterans' payments; 
Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June 1995: Excluded from income 
calculations; 
Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, issued January 2005: 
Included in income calculations. 

Changes to Eligibility Criteria: Interest/dividends; 
Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June 1995: $3000 excluded from 
income calculations; 
Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, issued January 2005: 
Included in income calculations. 

Changes to Eligibility Criteria: Exclusion for enrollee 
recertification; 
Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June 1995: $500 of includable income 
was not counted for enrollee recertification; 
Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, issued January 2005: No 
such exclusion. 

Changes to Eligibility Criteria: Time period for income calculations; 
Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June 1995: Option of using either 
previous 12 months or 6 months annualized; 
Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, issued January 2005: No 
option, calculations based on 6 months annualized. 

Changes to Eligibility Criteria: Employment status; 
Older Worker Bulletin 95-5, issued June 1995: Not mentioned. Labor 
allowed applicants to be either under-employed or unemployed; 
Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-04, issued January 2005: 
Applicants must be unemployed. 

Source: GAO analysis of Labor guidance: 

[End of table] 

Most national and state grantees surveyed cited the revised income 
criteria as the major factor that precluded previously eligible 
individuals from receiving SCSEP services. For example, one state 
grantee responded to our survey that more than two-thirds of the 
applicants determined to be ineligible because of the revised income 
criteria would have been eligible under previous criteria. A state 
grantee that we visited estimated that 133 individuals in 2005 who 
would have been eligible for SCSEP under previous eligibility criteria 
were no longer eligible. More than one-half of these individuals were 
determined to be ineligible because of the revised income criteria. 
Similarly, a national grantee that we visited reported that during a 3 
month period in 2004, 321 individuals that would have been previously 
eligible for SCSEP were declared ineligible because of changes to the 
income definition. Two other national grantees noted in their survey 
responses that a number of current participants had to be dropped from 
the program because of the revised income criteria. In addition, two 
national grantees told us that the income requirements had especially 
affected rural areas. For example, one grantee stated that hundreds of 
older workers in rural areas who would have been previously eligible 
had been turned away because of the changes to the SCSEP income 
definition. 

The administration's proposal for the upcoming reauthorization of Title 
V of OAA contains provisions for standardizing the income threshold. 
Labor believes that reauthorization provides an opportunity to align 
SCSEP income eligibility criteria with those used by Labor and other 
federal programs that are income-tested. Labor noted that more 
uniformity with respect to the types of income used to determine 
program eligibility, such as Social Security benefits versus earned 
income, would increase public confidence that these programs were being 
administered in a consistent and equitable manner. 

Many grantees surveyed reported that revising the period on which 
income is calculated had also greatly reduced the pool of individuals 
who are eligible to receive SCSEP services. Prior to Labor's 
regulations issued in 2004, grantees had the option of calculating 
income using either the includable income for the 12 months preceding 
application or annualizing the includable income for the 6 months 
preceding application, that is doubling the 6-month income to calculate 
an annual income. Labor now requires grantees to annualize an 
applicant's income using the 6 months prior to application. Four of the 
national grantees (31 percent) and 16 of the state grantees (31 
percent) responded in the survey that this change had greatly decreased 
the pool of individuals who are eligible to receive SCSEP services. 
Another 4 national grantees (31 percent) and 18 state grantees (35 
percent) responded that it had somewhat decreased the eligible pool. 
For example, a national grantee and two state grantees noted in their 
survey responses that using 6 months annualized could distort income 
for those who only had earnings during that 6-month period. Another 
state grantee reported that annualizing 6 months of income eliminates 
individuals who would have qualified using a 12-month calculation. A 
state grantee that we visited believes that annualizing 6 months of 
income is a particular problem for rural states because many 
participants work only during the planting or harvest seasons. Labor 
officials said that changing the period on which income is calculated 
was intended to simplify the process and to reflect the most current 
income information. 

Most national and state grantees surveyed also reported that requiring 
applicants to be unemployed at time of application had reduced the pool 
of individuals who are eligible to receive SCSEP services because prior 
to the OAA Amendments of 2000, Labor permitted applicants who held part-
time jobs and met other eligibility criteria to be eligible for SCSEP 
services. The 2000 OAA amendments retained the language contained in 
the statement of purpose from the authorizing legislation that the 
program was to provide services to unemployed low income adults 55 
years and older. The amendments, however, defined eligible individuals 
as those individuals who are 55 years and older and have income not 
more than 125 percent of the poverty guidelines, but did not refer to 
employment status. Labor officials stated that the Office of the 
Solicitor took a strict interpretation of the act and determined that 
applicants must be unemployed at the time of application to be eligible 
for SCSEP. Labor officials noted that this interpretation was 
consistent with the overall philosophy that SCSEP should be targeted to 
those most in need of SCSEP's intensive services. 

Grantees responding to our survey indicated that the requirement that 
applicants be unemployed prevented some low-income older workers, who 
would otherwise be eligible for the program, from receiving SCSEP 
services. For example, one national grantee reported that many older 
workers who are only working sporadically or part-time to supplement 
their incomes, (referred to as underemployed) are no longer eligible 
for SCSEP services. Two state grantees mentioned that underemployed 
applicants seek SCSEP services to obtain additional skills to increase 
their potential for a better job and stated that SCSEP services can 
help such individuals rise above the poverty level. Another state 
grantee noted that under-employed older workers who may work only 4 
hours per week are not earning a livable wage and should be eligible 
for services. One of the state grantees that we visited said that many 
older workers who lived in the state were employed part-time and could 
benefit from SCSEP services. They estimated that in 2005, over 20 
percent of the 133 older workers that would have been previously 
eligible for SCSEP were no longer eligible because of the requirement 
that applicants be unemployed. 

Other Challenges That Grantees Face: 

National and state grantees surveyed also identified other issues that 
presented major challenges to managing the SCSEP program. The majority 
of both national and state grantees identified several issues in the 
survey as being great or very great challenges, in particular 
coordinating of SCSEP activities with WIA services, obtaining intensive 
services and training at one-stop centers, implementing Labor's new 
data collection system, and meeting performance measures (see figure 
2). 

Figure 2: Issues Cited by Majority of National and State Grantees as 
Great or Very Great Challenges: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Although the 2000 OAA amendments sought to strengthen coordination 
between SCSEP and WIA, national and state grantees surveyed identified 
the coordination of SCSEP activities with WIA services and obtaining 
intensive services and training at one-stops as major challenges. For 
example, several national and state grantees responded that many WIA 
providers are hesitant to provide intensive services or training to 
SCSEP participants because they are concerned that enrolling older 
adults would negatively affect their performance measures. Older adults 
who receive intensive services or training from WIA providers are 
included in the computation of WIA performance measures. Another state 
grantee stated that while coordination with one-stops for core services 
is very good, access to training is very difficult. We heard a similar 
theme among states we visited. For example, one state grantee we 
visited said that WIA is so performance-driven that few SCSEP 
participants are able to access intensive and training services under 
WIA. 

The reported lack of coordination between SCSEP and WIA is especially 
relevant in light of the administration's proposal to increase the age 
of SCSEP eligibility from 55 to 65, with limited exceptions for those 
between the ages of 55-64. Labor believes that WIA, not SCSEP, should 
be the primary program for older adults age 55 to 64. However, we have 
previously reported that WIA has built in disincentives that discourage 
the providing of in-depth services, such as training, to older 
adults.[Footnote 8] We noted that the Bureau of Labor Statistics and 
Census data suggest that older workers have unique employment 
characteristics, such as a tendency to work part-time and a likelihood 
to take larger pay cuts than younger workers when they re-enter the 
labor market. These characteristics may negatively affect outcomes on 
certain WIA performance measures, and, as a result, create a barrier to 
enrolling older workers into WIA intensive services and training. 

While most of the 13 national and 52 state grantees surveyed also 
reported challenges with Labor's new data collection system, they noted 
that the agency provided helpful assistance with system implementation. 
Several national and state grantees stated that implementation of the 
data system was both time and labor-intensive. In particular, one state 
grantee told us that Labor rolled out the data collection system 
prematurely, resulting in a loss of productivity at the grantee and 
subgrantee level. Despite these concerns, most grantees indicated that 
they received training or technical assistance for the system from 
Labor or its contractors. Moreover, while several national and state 
grantees provided positive comments about Labor's assistance, with 
respect to staff responsiveness, others were less than satisfied and 
indicated the need for more assistance. 

All of the national grantees and most of the state grantees that cited 
meeting performance measures as a great or very great challenge in the 
survey indicated that the program eligibility changes had the greatest 
effect on their ability to meet the performance measure dealing with 
SCSEP service level.[Footnote 9] A number of state grantees mentioned 
that the greater difficulty in recruiting SCSEP participants translated 
into difficulty meeting the service level performance measure. Another 
of the state grantees that we visited said that the service level 
measure would present the greatest challenge because the income 
guidelines were too restrictive. According to Labor data, 7 of the 13 
national grantees and 21 of the 52 state grantees did not meet their 
service level goals for program year 2004. Labor officials noted that 
some of the grantees who were concerned with low enrollments may not 
perform sufficient outreach or marketing. 

Concluding Observations: 

The aging of the baby boom generation presents serious challenges for 
the nation's workforce investment system. The expected increase in the 
number of low-income older adults means that, more and more, older 
Americans will have to continue working in order to have sufficient 
income. Many older adults have difficulty re-entering the labor force 
and often rely on federal employment and training programs to help them 
find employment, with SCSEP being the only federal employment and 
training program targeted exclusively to low-income older adults. While 
the 2000 OAA Amendments to SCSEP have achieved desired outcomes in some 
respects--particularly in terms of increasing the program's focus on 
helping participants find unsubsidized employment--challenges remain. 
More specifically, while Labor has taken steps to establish an enhanced 
performance accountability system, as of March 2006 the system has 
still not been fully implemented. The delay in implementing this system 
means that program year 2005 is the first year that grantees will be 
held accountable for poor performance. In this respect, given the 
upcoming reauthorization of the OAA, only limited data will be 
available to assess the affects of the system. In addition, the current 
eligibility requirements implemented by Labor may exclude a substantial 
portion of the low-income older adults from the program. While Labor 
apparently changed the eligibility requirements in an effort to target 
older adults most in need of SCSEP services, our work suggests that 
these changes have had the unintended consequence of excluding older 
adults who only work a few hours a week, and could benefit from the 
program. As a result, those needing additional assistance would have to 
turn to other employment and training programs such as WIA. However, 
given the problems older adults often experience in obtaining in-depth 
services such as training, it is unclear whether the existing workforce 
system is able to provide the type and level of services that this 
population needs. Thus, while the 2000 OAA amendments were designed to 
enhance employment and training opportunities for older adults, we 
believe that Labor can do more to address unresolved issues concerning 
coordination between SCSEP and WIA, and helping older adults obtain 
intensive and training services at one-stop centers. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have 
at this time. 

GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments: 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at 
(202) 512-7215. Jeremy Cox, Wayne Sylvia, Rebecca Woiwode, and Drew 
Lindsey were key contributors to this testimony. 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: 

Table 6: National Grantee Funds and Positions for Program Year 2005: 

National Grantee: TOTAL; 
Funds: $340,542,384; 
Positions: 47,608. 

National Grantee: AARP Foundation; 
Funds: $74,119,938; 
Positions: 10,362. 

National Grantee: Asociacion Nacional Pro Personas Mayores; 
Funds: $7,697,076; 
Positions: 1,075. 

National Grantee: Easter Seals; 
Funds: $16,077,169; 
Positions: 2,248. 

National Grantee: Experience Works; 
Funds: $86,033,517; 
Positions: 12,029. 

National Grantee: Mature Services; 
Funds: $5,514,963; 
Positions: 771. 

National Grantee: National Able Network; 
Funds: $5,435,364; 
Positions: 760. 

National Grantee: National Asian Pacific Center on Aging; 
Funds: $5,978,047; 
Positions: 836. 

National Grantee: National Caucus and Center on Black Aged; 
Funds: $15,228,375; 
Positions: 2,129. 

National Grantee: National Council on Aging; 
Funds: $21,602,605; 
Positions: 3,020. 

National Grantee: National Indian Council on Aging; 
Funds: $6,027,252; 
Positions: 842. 

National Grantee: Senior Service America; 
Funds: $50,290,679; 
Positions: 7,030. 

National Grantee: SER - Jobs for Progress; 
Funds: $26,168,160; 
Positions: 3,658. 

National Grantee: USDA Forest Service; 
Funds: $20,369,239; 
Positions: 2,848. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: 

Table 7: Total Funds and Positions by State for Program Year 2005: 

State Grantee: TOTAL; 
National: Funds: $340,542,384; 
National: Positions: 47,608; 
State: Funds: $92,860,928; 
State: Positions: 12,982; 
Total: Funds: $433,403,312; 
Total: Positions: 60,590. 

State Grantee: Alabama; 
National: Funds: $6,320,471; 
National: Positions: 884; 
State: Funds: $1,615,788; 
State: Positions: 226; 
Total: Funds: $7,936,259; 
Total: Positions: 1,110. 

State Grantee: Alaska; 
National: Funds: $0; 
National: Positions: 0; 
State: Funds: $1,864,917; 
State: Positions: 261; 
Total: Funds: $1,864,917; 
Total: Positions: 261. 

State Grantee: Arizona; 
National: Funds: $4,508,899; 
National: Positions: 630; 
State: Funds: $1,160,235; 
State: Positions: 162; 
Total: Funds: $5,669,134; 
Total: Positions: 792. 

State Grantee: Arkansas; 
National: Funds: $6,213,586; 
National: Positions: 869; 
State: Funds: $1,587,316; 
State: Positions: 222; 
Total: Funds: $7,800,902; 
Total: Positions: 1,091. 

State Grantee: California; 
National: Funds: $29,193,091; 
National: Positions: 4,079; 
State: Funds: $7,481,025; 
State: Positions: 1,045; 
Total: Funds: $36,674,116; 
Total: Positions: 5,124. 

State Grantee: Colorado; 
National: Funds: $3,448,825; 
National: Positions: 482; 
State: Funds: $882,633; 
State: Positions: 123; 
Total: Funds: $4,331,458; 
Total: Positions: 605. 

State Grantee: Connecticut; 
National: Funds: $3,748,103; 
National: Positions: 524; 
State: Funds: $953,812; 
State: Positions: 133; 
Total: Funds: $4,701,915; 
Total: Positions: 657. 

State Grantee: Delaware; 
National: Funds: $0; 
National: Positions: 0; 
State: Funds: $1,864,917; 
State: Positions: 261; 
Total: Funds: $1,864,917; 
Total: Positions: 261. 

State Grantee: District of Columbia; 
National: Funds: $1,959,560; 
National: Positions: 274; 
State: Funds: $505,378; 
State: Positions: 71; 
Total: Funds: $2,464,938; 
Total: Positions: 345. 

State Grantee: Florida; 
National: Funds: $20,122,897; 
National: Positions: 2,813; 
State: Funds: $5,146,318; 
State: Positions: 718; 
Total: Funds: $25,269,215; 
Total: Positions: 3,531. 

State Grantee: Georgia; 
National: Funds: $7,560,338; 
National: Positions: 1,057; 
State: Funds: $1,936,098; 
State: Positions: 271; 
Total: Funds: $9,496,436; 
Total: Positions: 1,328. 

State Grantee: Hawaii; 
National: Funds: $0; 
National: Positions: 0; 
State: Funds: $1,864,917; 
State: Positions: 261; 
Total: Funds: $1,864,917; 
Total: Positions: 261. 

State Grantee: Idaho; 
National: Funds: $1,936,240; 
National: Positions: 271; 
State: Funds: $464,305; 
State: Positions: 65; 
Total: Funds: $2,400,545; 
Total: Positions: 336. 

State Grantee: Illinois; 
National: Funds: $13,248,612; 
National: Positions: 1,852; 
State: Funds: $3,395,289; 
State: Positions: 475; 
Total: Funds: $16,643,901; 
Total: Positions: 2,327. 

State Grantee: Indiana; 
National: Funds: $8,928,466; 
National: Positions: 1,248; 
State: Funds: $2,284,880; 
State: Positions: 319; 
Total: Funds: $11,213,346; 
Total: Positions: 1,567. 

State Grantee: Iowa; 
National: Funds: $4,368,036; 
National: Positions: 611; 
State: Funds: $1,117,527; 
State: Positions: 156; 
Total: Funds: $5,485,563; 
Total: Positions: 767. 

State Grantee: Kansas; 
National: Funds: $3,510,095; 
National: Positions: 491; 
State: Funds: $889,751; 
State: Positions: 124; 
Total: Funds: $4,399,846; 
Total: Positions: 615. 

State Grantee: Kentucky; 
National: Funds: $6,462,984; 
National: Positions: 904; 
State: Funds: $1,658,495; 
State: Positions: 232; 
Total: Funds: $8,121,479; 
Total: Positions: 1,136. 

State Grantee: Louisiana; 
National: Funds: $5,691,272; 
National: Positions: 795; 
State: Funds: $1,473,427; 
State: Positions: 206; 
Total: Funds: $7,164,699; 
Total: Positions: 1,001. 

State Grantee: Maine; 
National: Funds: $2,102,073; 
National: Positions: 294; 
State: Funds: $540,969; 
State: Positions: 76; 
Total: Funds: $2,643,042; 
Total: Positions: 370. 

State Grantee: Maryland; 
National: Funds: $4,688,692; 
National: Positions: 655; 
State: Funds: $1,202,943; 
State: Positions: 168; 
Total: Funds: $5,891,635; 
Total: Positions: 823. 

State Grantee: Massachusetts; 
National: Funds: $7,416,501; 
National: Positions: 1,037; 
State: Funds: $1,900,508; 
State: Positions: 266; 
Total: Funds: $9,317,009; 
Total: Positions: 1,303. 

State Grantee: Michigan; 
National: Funds: $11,355,634; 
National: Positions: 1,587; 
State: Funds: $2,911,264; 
State: Positions: 407; 
Total: Funds: $14,266,898; 
Total: Positions: 1,994. 

State Grantee: Minnesota; 
National: Funds: $8,126,440; 
National: Positions: 1,136; 
State: Funds: $2,071,340; 
State: Positions: 290; 
Total: Funds: $10,197,780; 
Total: Positions: 1,426. 

State Grantee: Mississippi; 
National: Funds: $4,204,146; 
National: Positions: 588; 
State: Funds: $1,081,937; 
State: Positions: 151; 
Total: Funds: $5,826,083; 
Total: Positions: 739. 

State Grantee: Missouri; 
National: Funds: $8,201,648; 
National: Positions: 1,147; 
State: Funds: $2,156,756; 
State: Positions: 302; 
Total: Funds: $10,358,404; 
Total: Positions: 1,449. 

State Grantee: Montana; 
National: Funds: $2,263,238; 
National: Positions: 317; 
State: Funds: $548,087; 
State: Positions: 77; 
Total: Funds: $2,811,325; 
Total: Positions: 394. 

State Grantee: Nebraska; 
National: Funds: $2,606,361; 
National: Positions: 365; 
State: Funds: $669,093; 
State: Positions: 94; 
Total: Funds: $3,275,454; 
Total: Positions: 459. 

State Grantee: Nevada; 
National: Funds: $1,723,459; 
National: Positions: 241; 
State: Funds: $464,305; 
State: Positions: 65; 
Total: Funds: $2,187,764; 
Total: Positions: 306. 

State Grantee: New Hampshire; 
National: Funds: $1,642,685; 
National: Positions: 230; 
State: Funds: $464,305; 
State: Positions: 65; 
Total: Funds: $2,106,990; 
Total: Positions: 295. 

State Grantee: New Jersey; 
National: Funds: $9,641,033; 
National: Positions: 1,348; 
State: Funds: $2,462,830; 
State: Positions: 344; 
Total: Funds: $12,103,863; 
Total: Positions: 1,692. 

State Grantee: New Mexico; 
National: Funds: $1,992,155; 
National: Positions: 279; 
State: Funds: $491,143; 
State: Positions: 69; 
Total: Funds: $2,483,298; 
Total: Positions: 348. 

State Grantee: New York; 
National: Funds: $22,540,759; 
National: Positions: 3,151; 
State: Funds: $5,765,585; 
State: Positions: 805; 
Total: Funds: $28,306,344; 
Total: Positions: 3,956. 

State Grantee: North Carolina; 
National: Funds: $8,921,341; 
National: Positions: 1,247; 
State: Funds: $2,284,880; 
State: Positions: 319; 
Total: Funds: $11,206,221; 
Total: Positions: 1,566. 

State Grantee: North Dakota; 
National: Funds: $2,045,068; 
National: Positions: 286; 
State: Funds: $526,732; 
State: Positions: 74; 
Total: Funds: $2,571,800; 
Total: Positions: 360. 

State Grantee: Ohio; 
National: Funds: $14,871,277; 
National: Positions: 2,079; 
State: Funds: $3,808,133; 
State: Positions: 532; 
Total: Funds: $18,679,410; 
Total: Positions: 2,611. 

State Grantee: Oklahoma; 
National: Funds: $5,467,186; 
National: Positions: 765; 
State: Funds: $1,402,248; 
State: Positions: 196; 
Total: Funds: $6,869,434; 
Total: Positions: 961. 

State Grantee: Oregon; 
National: Funds: $5,016,473; 
National: Positions: 701; 
State: Funds: $1,281,241; 
State: Positions: 179; 
Total: Funds: $6,297,714; 
Total: Positions: 880. 

State Grantee: Pennsylvania; 
National: Funds: $18,297,675; 
National: Positions: 2,558; 
State: Funds: $4,669,412; 
State: Positions: 653; 
Total: Funds: $22,967,087; 
Total: Positions: 3,211. 

State Grantee: Puerto Rico; 
National: Funds: $4,688,692; 
National: Positions: 655; 
State: Funds: $1,195,825; 
State: Positions: 167; 
Total: Funds: $5,884,517; 
Total: Positions: 822. 

State Grantee: Rhode Island; 
National: Funds: $1,809,921; 
National: Positions: 253; 
State: Funds: $469,788; 
State: Positions: 66; 
Total: Funds: $2,279,709; 
Total: Positions: 319. 

State Grantee: South Carolina; 
National: Funds: $4,645,938; 
National: Positions: 650; 
State: Funds: $1,188,707; 
State: Positions: 166; 
Total: Funds: $5,834,645; 
Total: Positions: 816. 

State Grantee: South Dakota; 
National: Funds: $2,360,955; 
National: Positions: 330; 
State: Funds: $605,030; 
State: Positions: 85; 
Total: Funds: $2,965,985; 
Total: Positions: 415. 

State Grantee: Tennessee; 
National: Funds: $6,968,906; 
National: Positions: 974; 
State: Funds: $1,779,502; 
State: Positions: 249; 
Total: Funds: $8,748,408; 
Total: Positions: 1,223. 

State Grantee: Texas; 
National: Funds: $18,928,589; 
National: Positions: 2,646; 
State: Funds: $4,840,245; 
State: Positions: 677; 
Total: Funds: $23,768,834; 
Total: Positions: 3,323. 

State Grantee: Utah; 
National: Funds: $2,273,090; 
National: Positions: 318; 
State: Funds: $583,676; 
State: Positions: 82; 
Total: Funds: $2,856,766; 
Total: Positions: 400. 

State Grantee: Vermont; 
National: Funds: $1,866,926; 
National: Positions: 261; 
State: Funds: $484,024; 
State: Positions: 68; 
Total: Funds: $2,350,950; 
Total: Positions: 329. 

State Grantee: Virginia; 
National: Funds: $7,392,768; 
National: Positions: 1,033; 
State: Funds: $1,893,389; 
State: Positions: 265; 
Total: Funds: $9,286,157; 
Total: Positions: 1,298. 

State Grantee: Washington; 
National: Funds: $5,047,100; 
National: Positions: 706; 
State: Funds: $1,288,359; 
State: Positions: 180; 
Total: Funds: $6,335,459; 
Total: Positions: 886. 

State Grantee: West Virginia; 
National: Funds: $3,833,611; 
National: Positions: 536; 
State: Funds: $982,285; 
State: Positions: 137; 
Total: Funds: $4,815,896; 
Total: Positions: 673. 

State Grantee: Wisconsin; 
National: Funds: $8,737,884; 
National: Positions: 1,221; 
State: Funds: $2,235,285; 
State: Positions: 312; 
Total: Funds: $10,972,938; 
Total: Positions: 1,533. 

State Grantee: Wyoming; 
National: Funds: $1,642,685; 
National: Positions: 230; 
State: Funds: $464,305; 
State: Positions: 65; 
Total: Funds: $2,106,990; 
Total: Positions: 295. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Summary of SCSEP Grantee Performance Data for Benchmark 
Year, Program Year 2004: 

The following baseline performance data for SCSEP grantees are from 
benchmark program year 2004 (July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005). According 
to the Department of Labor, four SCSEP measures will contribute to a 
grantee's overall performance in program year 2005, the first year for 
which grantees will be held accountable for their performance. 

The measures are: 

Placement: the number of participants attaining unsubsidized 
employment, either full-or part-time, for at least 30 days of the first 
90 days after exiting the program, divided by the number of authorized 
SCSEP positions. 

Employment Retention: the rate of retention in unsubsidized employment 
6 months after placement. 

Service Level: the number of a grantee's participants divided by the 
number of the grantee's authorized positions. 

Service to Most-in-Need: the percentage of participants who are at 
least 60 years old and who have at least one of several additional 
barriers to employment, such as language barriers, poor employment 
history, or a physical or mental disability. 

These figures were provided by the Department of Labor and are included 
in this testimony for contextual purposes only. GAO has not verified 
the accuracy or reliability of these data. 

Table 8: SCSEP National Grantee Performance, Program Year 2004: 

Grantee Name: AARP Foundation; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 35.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 47.7%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 53.2%; 
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 214.6%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 50.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 54.3%. 

Grantee Name: Asociacion Nacional pro Personas Mayores; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 22.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 22.5%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 42.0%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 133.2%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 62.7%. 

Grantee Name: Easter Seals; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 27.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 17.0%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 69.8%; 
Service Level: Goal: 147.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 145.3%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 72.4%. 

Grantee Name: Experience Works; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 29.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 21.6%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 64.4%; 
Service Level: Goal: 142.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 153.3%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 65.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 66.5%. 

Grantee Name: Mature Services; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 30.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 24.2%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 74.5%; 
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 145.9%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 70.3%. 

Grantee Name: National ABLE Network; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 30.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 20.2%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 44.8%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 162.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%; 
Service to Most- in-Need: Actual: 57.5%. 

Grantee Name: National Asian Pacific Center on Aging; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 26.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 20.5%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 58.7%; 
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 170.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 69.7%. 

Grantee Name: National Caucus and Center on Black Aged; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 24.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 17.8%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 59.8%; 
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 142.7%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 72.7%. 

Grantee Name: National Council on the Aging, Inc; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 26.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 30.7%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 55.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 68.5%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 154.7%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 78.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 65.5%. 

Grantee Name: National Indian Council on Aging; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 20.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 8.6%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 80.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 79.5%; 
Service Level: Goal: 155.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 137.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 60.7%. 

Grantee Name: Senior Service America, Inc; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 28.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 31.3%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 20.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 80.0%; 
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 171.6%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 60.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 59.0%. 

Grantee Name: SER - Jobs for Progress National; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 20.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 17.1%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 40.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 69.7%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 132.9%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 70.0%. 

Grantee Name: USDA Forest Service; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 33.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 17.0%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 64.9%; 
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 129.1%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most- in-Need: Actual: 62.6%. 

Source: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration: 

[End of table] 

Table 9: SCSEP State Grantee Performance, Program Year 2004: 

Grantee Name: Alabama; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 22.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 23.8%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 64.0%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 156.8%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 67.4%. 

Grantee Name: Alaska; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 36.0%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 82.5%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 205.3%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 40.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 49.7%. 

Grantee Name: Arizona; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 14.9%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 75.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 92.3%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 154.6%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 69.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 70.3%. 

Grantee Name: Arkansas; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 19.3%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 89.7%; 
Service Level: Goal: 148.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 157.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 64.0%. 

Grantee Name: California; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 21.0%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 70.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 74.6%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 177.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 68.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 69.0%. 

Grantee Name: Colorado; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 27.4%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 66.7%; 
Service Level: Goal: 155.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 175.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 64.1%. 

Grantee Name: Connecticut; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 34.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 36.7%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 66.7%; 
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 189.8%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 61.3%. 

Grantee Name: Delaware; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 28.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 28.3%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 82.6%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 160.3%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 57.0%. 

Grantee Name: District of Columbia; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 29.6%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 100.0%; 
Service Level: Goal: 147.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 147.9%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%; 
Service to Most- in-Need: Actual: 79.0%. 

Grantee Name: Florida; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 30.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 31.5%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 86.5%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 194.1%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 60.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 71.4%. 

Grantee Name: Georgia; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 26.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 35.7%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 82.5%; 
Service Level: Goal: 175.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 183.8%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 67.2%. 

Grantee Name: Hawaii; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 22.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 26.0%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 40.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 85.0%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 174.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 65.8%. 

Grantee Name: Idaho; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 30.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 30.8%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 83.3%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 144.6%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 50.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 58.5%. 

Grantee Name: Illinois; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 22.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 17.7%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 70.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 87.9%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 154.2%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 60.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 59.5%. 

Grantee Name: Indiana; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 19.3%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 68.3%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 142.7%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 50.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 61.6%. 

Grantee Name: Iowa; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 24.2%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 83.3%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 144.6%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 65.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 53.3%. 

Grantee Name: Kansas; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 21.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 11.2%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 22.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 90.9%; 
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 137.6%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 72.1%. 

Grantee Name: Kentucky; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 15.0%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 88.9%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 127.5%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 66.0%. 

Grantee Name: Louisiana; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 13.0%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 100.0%; 
Service Level: Goal: 155.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 143.5%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 66.0%. 

Grantee Name: Maine; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 20.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 21.0%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 44.4%; 
Service Level: Goal: 120.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 135.5%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 64.3%. 

Grantee Name: Maryland; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 11.8%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 86.7%; 
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 134.9%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 63.6%. 

Grantee Name: Massachusetts; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 22.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 18.7%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 81.3%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 137.9%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 69.3%. 

Grantee Name: Michigan; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 18.8%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 80.6%; 
Service Level: Goal: 148.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 133.9%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 59.9%. 

Grantee Name: Minnesota; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 14.8%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 57.9%; 
Service Level: Goal: 120.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 132.6%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 65.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 65.0%. 

Grantee Name: Mississippi; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 20.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 7.9%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 50.0%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 136.2%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 65.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 71.0%. 

Grantee Name: Missouri; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 20.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 5.9%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 49.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 45.5%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 130.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 55.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 69.8%. 

Grantee Name: Montana; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 28.6%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 40.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 84.6%; 
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 151.9%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 63.2%. 

Grantee Name: Nebraska; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 22.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 17.0%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 55.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 66.7%; 
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 134.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 60.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 67.5%. 

Grantee Name: Nevada; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 70.8%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 20.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 90.3%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 236.9%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 79.2%. 

Grantee Name: New Hampshire; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 20.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 12.3%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 57.1%; 
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 93.8%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 47.5%. 

Grantee Name: New Jersey; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 32.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 7.5%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 86.7%; 
Service Level: Goal: 160.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 137.6%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 81.1%. 

Grantee Name: New Mexico; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 8.7%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 50.0%; 
Service Level: Goal: 155.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 100.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 63.8%. 

Grantee Name: New York; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 26.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 23.5%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 73.8%; 
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 151.4%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 63.9%. 

Grantee Name: North Carolina; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 22.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 15.0%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 69.7%; 
Service Level: Goal: 160.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 134.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 65.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 60.7%. 

Grantee Name: North Dakota; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 1.4%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 45.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 0.0%; 
Service Level: Goal: 142.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 104.1%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 75.3%. 

Grantee Name: Ohio; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 27.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 22.4%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 55.4%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 157.1%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 63.1%. 

Grantee Name: Oklahoma; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 21.3%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 81.8%; 
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 149.7%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 72.9%. 

Grantee Name: Oregon; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 29.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 27.3%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 25.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 72.7%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 182.8%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 50.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 53.0%. 

Grantee Name: Pennsylvania; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 27.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 16.4%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 60.0%; 
Service Level: Goal: 170.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 137.4%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 66.9%. 

Grantee Name: Puerto Rico; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 20.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 9.5%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 100.0%; 
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 125.6%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 52.1%. 

Grantee Name: Rhode Island; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 35.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 30.0%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 50.0%; 
Service Level: Goal: 155.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 162.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 75.3%. 

Grantee Name: South Carolina; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 7.2%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 40.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 25.0%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 118.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 67.5%. 

Grantee Name: South Dakota; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 24.7%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 60.0%; 
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 148.2%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 64.3%. 

Grantee Name: Tennessee; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 23.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 18.0%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 78.9%; 
Service Level: Goal: 142.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 143.6%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 70.5%. 

Grantee Name: Texas; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 35.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 31.4%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 40.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 58.3%; 
Service Level: Goal: 165.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 155.2%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 56.6%. 

Grantee Name: Utah; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 35.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 45.1%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 40.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 92.3%; 
Service Level: Goal: 145.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 159.8%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 55.0%. 

Grantee Name: Vermont; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 30.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 30.0%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 83.3%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 170.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 37.6%. 

Grantee Name: Virginia; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 33.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 22.6%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 75.0%; 
Service Level: Goal: 150.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 146.2%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 69.7%. 

Grantee Name: Washington; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 20.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 46.5%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 82.1%; 
Service Level: Goal: 125.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 200.8%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 80.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 56.9%. 

Grantee Name: West Virginia; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 25.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 13.8%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 37.5%; 
Service Level: Goal: 140.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 113.8%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 75.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 66.9%. 

Grantee Name: Wisconsin; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 30.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 20.6%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 85.0%; 
Service Level: Goal: 160.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 157.9%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 65.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 55.4%. 

Grantee Name: Wyoming; 
Placement Rate: Goal: 45.0%; 
Placement Rate: Actual: 33.8%; 
Retention Rate: Goal: 50.0%; 
Retention Rate: Actual: 76.9%; 
Service Level: Goal: 175.0%; 
Service Level: Actual: 183.1%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Goal: 70.0%; 
Service to Most-in-Need: Actual: 58.0%. 

Source: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration: 

[End of table] 

Appendix IV: Aggregate SCSEP Grantee Performance for Benchmark Year, 
Program Year 2004: 

These figures were provided by the Department of Labor and are included 
in this testimony for contextual purposes only. GAO has not verified 
the accuracy or reliability of these data. 

Table 10: Aggregate National Grantee Performance for Program Year 2004: 

Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for Satisfactory Performance: 

National Grantee: Senior Service America, Inc; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 182.1%. 

National Grantee: AARP Foundation; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 123.6%. 

National Grantee: SER - Jobs for Progress National; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 113.8%. 

National Grantee: National Council on the Aging, Inc; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 109.2%. 

National Grantee: Mature Services; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 103.7%. 

National Grantee: Experience Works; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 103.4%. 

National Grantee: National Asian Pacific Center on Aging; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 103.3%. 

National Grantee: National Caucus and Center on Black Aged; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 99.0%. 

National Grantee: Easter Seals; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 98.0%. 

National Grantee: Asociacion Nacional pro Personas Mayores; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 92.7%. 

National Grantee: USDA Forest Service; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 89.2%. 

National Grantee: National ABLE Network; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 86.1%. 

Did Not Meet 80% Threshold for Satisfactory Performance: 

National Grantee: National Indian Council on Aging; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 77.9%. 

Source: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration: 

[End of table] 

Table 11: Aggregate State Grantee Performance for Program Year 2004: 

Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for Satisfactory Performance: 

State Grantee: Nevada; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 258.5%. 

State Grantee: Kansas; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 165.3%. 

State Grantee: Washington; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 157.1%. 

State Grantee: Oregon; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 155.4%. 

State Grantee: Alaska; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 145.0%. 

State Grantee: Hawaii; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 137.3%. 

State Grantee: Utah; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 134.6%. 

State Grantee: Florida; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 133.9%. 

State Grantee: District of Columbia; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 133.6%. 

State Grantee: Montana; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 132.7%. 

State Grantee: Georgia; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 125.8%. 

State Grantee: Idaho; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 122.4%. 

State Grantee: Arkansas; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 115.2%. 

State Grantee: Delaware; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 114.2%. 

State Grantee: Connecticut; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 112.4%. 

State Grantee: Iowa; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 112.2%. 

State Grantee: Colorado; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 111.4%. 

State Grantee: Alabama; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 111.1%. 

State Grantee: Oklahoma; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 110.8%. 

State Grantee: Vermont; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 110.5%. 

State Grantee: Indiana; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 109.7%. 

State Grantee: Massachusetts; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 109.6%. 

State Grantee: Tennessee; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 109.5%. 

State Grantee: New York; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 107.6%. 

State Grantee: Louisiana; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 106.8%. 

State Grantee: Kentucky; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 105.8%. 

State Grantee: Wisconsin; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 105.6%. 

State Grantee: Michigan; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 104.8%. 

State Grantee: California; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 104.7%. 

State Grantee: Wyoming; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 104.1%. 

State Grantee: Illinois; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 103.9%. 

State Grantee: Virginia; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 103.8%. 

State Grantee: Puerto Rico; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 100.9%. 

State Grantee: Nebraska; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 100.9%. 

State Grantee: Maryland; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 100.4%. 

State Grantee: South Dakota; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 100.4%. 

State Grantee: Texas; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 100.1%. 

State Grantee: Maine; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 99.6%. 

State Grantee: Arizona; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 98.8%. 

State Grantee: New Jersey; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 97.7%. 

State Grantee: Rhode Island; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 97.7%. 

State Grantee: Minnesota; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 97.7%. 

State Grantee: Ohio; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 97.5%. 

State Grantee: North Carolina; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 96.1%. 

State Grantee: Pennsylvania; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 87.7%. 

State Grantee: Mississippi; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 86.5%. 

State Grantee: Missouri; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 85.6%. 

Did Not Meet 80% Threshold for Satisfactory Performance: 

State Grantee: New Hampshire; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 76.6%. 

State Grantee: West Virginia; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 75.1%. 

State Grantee: New Mexico; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 72.6%. 

State Grantee: South Carolina; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 68.0%. 

State Grantee: North Dakota; 
Percent of Aggregate Goal Achieved: Met or Exceeded 80% Threshold for 
Satisfactory Performance: 44.9%. 

Source: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration: 

[End of table] 

Related GAO Products: 

Older Workers: Labor Can Help Employers and Employees Plan Better for 
the Future. GAO-06-80. Washington, D.C.: Dec. 5, 2005. 

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

Redefining Retirement: Options for Older Americans. GAO-05- 620T. 
Washington, D.C.: Apr. 27, 2005. 

Older Workers: Policies of Other Nations to Increase Labor Force 
Participation. GAO-03-307. Washington, D.C.: Feb.13, 2003. 

Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job 
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other 
Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2003. 

Older Workers: Demographic Trends Pose Challenges for Employers and 
Workers. GAO-02-85. Washington, D.C.: Nov.16, 2001. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] For further information on older worker issues please see the 
following reports and testimonies: GAO, Older Workers: Labor Can Help 
Employers and Employees Plan Better for the Future, GAO-06-80, 
(Washington, D.C.: December 5, 2005); 
Older Workers: Policies of Other Nations to Increase Labor Force 
Participation, GAO-03-307 (Washington, D.C.: Feb.13, 2003);Older 
Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job 
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other 
Services, GAO-03-350 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2003); and Older 
Workers: Demographic Trends Pose Challenges for Employers and Workers, 
GAO-02-85 (Washington, D.C.: Nov.16, 2001). 

[2] A program year begins on July 1 of a year and ends on June 30 of 
the following year. A program year is designated by the year in which 
it begins. Thus program year 2005 began on July 1, 2005 and ends on 
June 30, 2006. 

[3] Supportive services assist participants to successfully participate 
in SCSEP. Such services include payments for transportation; health 
care and medical services; incidentals such as work shoes, uniforms, 
and tools; child and adult care; and temporary shelter. 

[4] The formula for distributing SCSEP funding to national and state 
grantees applies to the balance after Labor reserves funds for private 
employment projects, the territories, and national grantees serving 
older Indians and Pacific Island and Asian Americans. For example, in 
program year 2005 the total SCSEP appropriation was about $439 million. 
After making the required reservations, Labor distributed $421 million 
to national and state grantees using the funding formula. 

[5] The $437 million does not include $2 million reserved for private 
employment projects. 

[6] 0.75 percent of the total SCSEP appropriation is also used to fund 
positions in American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Marianas, and the US 
Virgin Islands. Each territory operates its own SCSEP program--national 
grantees do not serve these areas. 

[7] The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) introduced common 
performance measures as part of efforts to link program performance to 
the budget. Common measures apply to job training and employment 
programs administered by the U.S. Departments of Labor, Education, 
Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and 
Veterans Affairs. 

[8] GAO, Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized 
Jobs and Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve 
Access to Other Services, GAO-03-350 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2003). 

[9] This measure is defined as the total number of participants served 
to a grantee's authorized number of positions adjusted for the 
difference in wages required paid in a state or area.