This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-506T entitled 'Employment and Training Programs: Opportunities Exist for Improving Efficiency' which was released on April 7, 2011. This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. United States Government Accountability Office: GAO: Testimony: Before the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives: For Release on Delivery: Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT: Thursday, April 7, 2011: Employment and Training Programs: Opportunities Exist for Improving Efficiency: Statement of Andrew Sherrill, Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: GAO-11-506T: Chairman Rehberg, Ranking Member DeLauro, and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the findings from our recent work on fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in federally funded employment and training programs and our prior work on the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA).[Footnote 1] As you know, we recently issued two reports addressing fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in federal programs--one that outlined opportunities to reduce potential duplication across a wide range of federal programs[Footnote 2] and another that focused more specifically on employment and training programs.[Footnote 3] This work and our larger body of work in the area will help government policymakers address the rapidly building fiscal pressures facing our nation's government--pressures that stem, in part, from our mounting debt and sustained high unemployment. Our work to examine fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in employment and training programs has a long history. As early as the 1990s we issued a series of reports that raised questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of the federally funded employment and training system, and we concluded that a structural overhaul and consolidation of these programs was needed. Partly in response to these concerns, Congress passed WIA. The purpose of WIA, in part, was to transform the fragmented employment and training system into a coherent one, establishing a one-stop system that serves the needs of job seekers and employers. Since WIA was enacted, we have issued numerous reports that have included recommendations regarding many aspects of WIA, such as performance measures and accountability, one- stop centers, and training, among other topics. GAO's work has continued to find fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in employment and training programs. The area is characterized by a large number of programs with similar goals, beneficiaries, and allowable activities that are administered by multiple federal agencies. Fragmentation of programs exists when programs serve the same broad area of national need but are administered across different federal agencies or offices. Program overlap exists when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. Overlap and fragmentation among government programs or activities can be harbingers of unnecessary duplication. Given the challenges associated with fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication, careful, thoughtful actions will be needed to address these issues. My testimony today will discuss (1) what GAO has found regarding fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in federal employment and training programs, (2) the role that WIA activities can play in addressing these conditions, and (3) what additional information could help Congress minimize fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among these programs. In preparing this statement we relied on our previous work in these areas (please see the related GAO products appendix). These products contain detailed overviews of the scope and methodology we used. The work on which this statement is based was performed in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform audits to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provided a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. In summary, for fiscal year 2009, GAO identified 47 federally funded employment and training programs administered across nine agencies. Almost all of these programs overlap with at least one other program in that they provide at least one similar service to a similar population, but differences may exist in eligibility, objectives, and service delivery. WIA's structure provides the opportunity to reduce overlap and duplication because it requires that several of these programs provide services through the one-stop system, but they need not be on-site. Increasing colocation at one-stop centers, as well as consolidating state workforce and welfare administrative agencies could increase efficiencies, and several states and localities have undertaken such initiatives. To facilitate further progress in increasing administrative efficiencies, we recommended that the Secretaries of Labor and Health and Human Services (HHS) work together to develop and disseminate information about such efforts. Sustained congressional oversight is pivotal in addressing issues of fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication. Specifically, Congress could explore opportunities to enhance program evaluations and performance information and foster state and local innovation in integrating services and consolidating administrative structures. GAO Identified 47 Federal Employment and Training Programs, and Most Overlapped with at Least One Other Program: For fiscal year 2009, we identified 47 federally funded employment and training programs administered across nine agencies, primarily the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services (HHS) (for a list of programs and agencies, see appendix I).[Footnote 4] These programs reported spending approximately $18 billion on employment and training services in fiscal year 2009.[Footnote 5] Seven programs accounted for about three-fourths of this spending, including the WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs, which spent nearly $6 billion on employment and training services (see table 1). Most participants received employment and training services through one of two programs: Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities (Employment Service) and WIA Adult.[Footnote 6] Together, these two programs reported serving over 18 million individuals, or about 77 percent of the total number of participants served across all programs.[Footnote 7] Table 1: Seven Largest Programs: Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in Fiscal Year 2009 and Estimated Number of Participants Served: Program (Agency): Rehabilitation Services -Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States (Education); Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in FY09[A]: $2,956,743,700; Estimated Number of Participants: 979,409; Year Served[B]: 2009. Program (Agency): WIA Dislocated Worker (Labor); Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in FY09[A]: 2,421,340,000; Estimated Number of Participants: 671,786; Year Served[B]: 2008. Program (Agency): WIA Youth (Labor); Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in FY09[A]: 2,112,069,000; Estimated Number of Participants: 282,426; Year Served[B]: 2008. Program (Agency): Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (HHS); Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in FY09[A]: 1,777,958,939; Estimated Number of Participants: 134,767[C]; Year Served[B]: 2008. Program (Agency): Job Corps (Labor); Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in FY09[A]: 1,775,000,000; Estimated Number of Participants: 59,357; Year Served[B]: 2008. Program (Agency): WIA Adult (Labor); Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in FY09[A]: 1,356,540,000; Estimated Number of Participants: 5,171,158; Year Served[B]: 2008. Program (Agency): Employment Service (Labor); Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in FY09[A]: 1,203,677,000; Estimated Number of Participants: 13,472,624; Year Served[B]: 2009. Program (Agency): Total; Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in FY09[A]: $13,603,328,639; Estimated Number of Participants: 20,771,527. Source: GAO survey of agency officials. [A] Estimates may include funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). [B] Officials provided the estimated number of participants for the most recent year for which data were available. [C] This number represents the monthly average number of individuals receiving TANF cash assistance who were engaged in work activities such as subsidized employment, work experience, on-the-job training, job search and job readiness assistance, community service, vocational educational training, job skills training, and in certain circumstances education directly related to employment. It does not include the number of individuals engaged in unsubsidized employment. Officials were unable to provide an annual estimate. [End of table] Almost all programs overlap with at least one other program, but differences may exist in eligibility, objectives, and service delivery. Forty-four of the 47 programs, which include broad multipurpose block grants, overlap with at least one other program, in that they provide at least one similar service to a similar population. Some of these overlapping programs serve multiple population groups, while others target specific populations, and some programs require participants to be economically disadvantaged. The target populations being served by the most programs are Native Americans, veterans, and youth. For example, all 8 programs that target Native Americans provide seven similar types of employment and training services.[Footnote 8] However, some individuals within a population group may be eligible for one program, but not another because program eligibility criteria differ. One of the programs targeting Native Americans, for example, serves only disabled Native Americans residing on or near a federal or state reservation, and another program serves only Native Hawaiians. Some efforts have been made to address overlap in programs and services. Officials from 27 of the 47 programs reported that their agencies have coordinated efforts with other federal agencies that provide similar services to similar populations. For example, Labor and HHS issued a joint letter encouraging state-administered youth programs to partner together using funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)[Footnote 9] to promote subsidized employment opportunities. In addition, an official from the Department of the Interior reported that the agency works with Labor and HHS to coordinate programs for Native Americans. Under law, Native American tribes are allowed significant flexibility to combine funding from multiple programs.[Footnote 10] Moreover, as part of its proposed WIA reforms, the Administration is proposing consolidating 4 employment and training programs administered by Education into 1 program.[Footnote 11] The Administration also proposes consolidating Education's Career and Technical Education - Basic Grants to States and Tech-Prep Education programs, at the same time reducing program funding. In addition, the budget proposal would transfer the Senior Community Service Employment Program from Labor to HHS. Three of the largest programs maintain separate administrative structures to provide some of the same services. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Employment Service, and WIA Adult programs provide some of the same employment and training services--such as job search and job referral services--to low-income individuals, although there are differences between the programs (see figure 1).[Footnote 12] The TANF program serves low-income families with children, while the Employment Service and WIA Adult programs serve all adults, including low-income individuals.[Footnote 13] All three programs share a common goal of helping individuals secure employment, and the TANF and WIA Adult programs also aim to reduce welfare dependency. However, employment is only one aspect of the TANF program, which also has three other broad social service goals: to assist needy families so that children can generally be cared for in their own homes, to reduce and prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. As a result, TANF provides a wide range of other services beyond employment and training, including cash assistance.[Footnote 14] Figure 1: Employment and Training Services Provided by the TANF, Employment Service, and WIA Adult Programs, Fiscal Year 2009: [Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table] Program name: Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities (DOL) Employment counseling and assessment: Secondary service; General Equivalency Diploma assistance: [Empty]; Development of job opportunities: Primary service; Job readiness skills training: Primary service; Job referrals: Primary service; Job retention training: [Empty]; Job search or job placement activities: Primary service; Occupational or vocational training: [Empty]; On-the-job training: [Empty]; Remedial academic, English language skills, or basic adult literacy: [Empty]; Work experience: [Empty]; Other: Primary service[A]. Program name: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (HHS); Employment counseling and assessment: Secondary service; General Equivalency Diploma assistance: Secondary service; Development of job opportunities: Primary service; Job readiness skills training: Secondary service; Job referrals: Secondary service; Job retention training: [Empty]; Job search or job placement activities: Secondary service; Occupational or vocational training: Secondary service; On-the-job training: Secondary service; Remedial academic, English language skills, or basic adult literacy: Secondary service; Work experience: Secondary service; Other: Primary service[B]. Program name: WIA Adult Program (DOL); Employment counseling and assessment: Primary service; General Equivalency Diploma assistance: Primary service; Development of job opportunities: Primary service; Job readiness skills training: Primary service; Job referrals: Primary service; Job retention training: Secondary service; Job search or job placement activities: Primary service; Occupational or vocational training: Primary service; On-the-job training: Primary service; Remedial academic, English language skills, or basic adult literacy: Secondary service; Work experience: Primary service; Other: [Empty]. Source: GAO survey of agency officials. [A] Job search workshops. [B] Subsidized employment. [End of figure] Although the extent to which individuals receive the same employment and training services from TANF, the Employment Service, and WIA Adult is unknown, the programs maintain separate administrative structures to provide some of the same services to low-income individuals. Data limitations make it difficult to assess duplication of services, but Labor officials estimate that in program year 2008 approximately 4.5 percent of all WIA Adult participants who received training--about 4,500 of the nearly 100,000 participants who exited the program--were also receiving TANF. However, it is unclear whether the WIA Adult participants who self-identify as TANF recipients have received TANF employment and training services.[Footnote 15] Nonetheless, the three programs maintain separate administrative structures. At the federal level, the TANF program is administered by HHS, and the Employment Service and WIA Adult programs are administered by Labor. At the state level, the TANF program is typically administered by state human services or welfare agencies, while the other two programs are typically administered by state workforce agencies. At the local level, Employment Service and WIA Adult services are generally provided through the one-stop centers, while TANF employment and training services may be administered through the one-stop or through other structures. Federal agency officials acknowledged that greater administrative efficiencies could be achieved in delivering these services, but also said that other factors, such as the proximity of services to clients, could warrant having multiple entities providing the same services. WIA's Structure Provides the Opportunity to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: Congress passed WIA partly in response to concerns about fragmentation and inefficiencies in federal employment and training programs. [Footnote 16] WIA authorized several employment and training programs-- including Job Corps and programs for Native Americans, migrant and seasonal farmworkers, and veterans--as well as the Adult Education and Literacy program.[Footnote 17] WIA replaced the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) programs for economically disadvantaged adults and youths and dislocated workers with three new programs--WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and WIA Youth.[Footnote 18] The Adult and Dislocated Worker programs provide three tiers, or levels, of service: core, intensive, and training. Core services include basic services such as job search assistance and labor market information and they may be self-service in nature.[Footnote 19] Intensive services may include such activities as comprehensive assessment and case management--activities that require greater staff involvement. Training services may include occupational skills or on-the-job training. Beyond authorizing these programs, WIA also established one- stop centers in all local areas[Footnote 20] and mandated that many federal employment and training programs provide services through the centers.[Footnote 21] Thirteen Categories of Employment and Training Programs Must Provide Services Through the One-Stop System: Under WIA, sixteen different categories of programs, administered by four federal agencies, must provide services through the one-stop system, according to Labor officials.[Footnote 22] Thirteen of these categories include programs that meet our definition of an employment and training program, and three categories do not, but offer other services to jobseekers who need them (see figure 2). These thirteen program categories represent about 40 percent of the federal appropriations for employment and training programs in fiscal year 2010.[Footnote 23] Figure 2. Categories of Programs Required to Provide Services Through the One-Stop System and Related Federal Agencies: [Refer to PDF for image: illustration] One-Stop Center: Department of Labor: * WIA Adult, Youth, and Dislocated Worker; * Employment Service; * Trade Adjustment Assistance; * Veterans’ employment and training; * Unemployment Insurance[A]; * Job Corps; * Senior Community Service Employment Program; * Employment and training for Native Americans and migrant farm workers. Department of Education: * Vocational Rehabilitation Program; * Adult Educationand Literacy[A]; * Vocational Education (Perkins Act). Department of Health & Human Services: * Community Services Block Grant. Department of Housing & Urban Development: * HUD-administered employment programs[A]. Source: Agency documents. Note: Vocational Education (Perkins Act) programs include the Career and Technical Education - Basic Grants to States and Tech-Prep Education programs. HUD-administered employment programs include the Community Development Block Grant and Housing Choice Voucher Family Self-Sufficiency programs. [A] Program did not meet our definition of an employment and training program in our recent study of multiple employment and training programs. [End of figure] One-stop centers serve as the key access point for a range of services that help unemployed workers re-enter the workforce--such as job search assistance, skill assessment and case management, occupational skills and on-the-job training, basic education and literacy training, as well access to Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits and other supportive services--and they also assist employers in finding workers. Any person visiting a one-stop center may look for a job, receive career development services, and gain access to a range of vocational education programs. In our 2007 study, we found that a typical one-stop center in many states offered services for 8 or 9 required programs on-site, and one state offered services for 16 required programs on-site.[Footnote 24] In addition to required programs, one-stop centers have the flexibility to include other, optional programs in the one-stop system, such as TANF, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment and Training Program, or other community-based programs, which helps them better meet specific state and local workforce development needs. The Dayton, Ohio one-stop center, for example, boasts over 40 programs on-site at the 8-1/2 acre facility, including an organization that provides free business attire to job seekers who need it, an alternative high school program that assists students in obtaining a diploma, and organizations providing parenting and self-sufficiency classes. Under WIA, services may also be provided at affiliated sites--designated locations that provide access to at least one employment and training program. While WIA requires certain programs to provide services through the one-stop system, it does not provide additional funds to operate one- stop systems and support one-stop infrastructure. As a result, required programs are expected to share the costs of developing and operating one-stop centers. In 2007, we reported that WIA programs and the Employment Service program were the largest funding sources states used to support the infrastructure--or nonpersonnel costs--of their comprehensive one-stop centers.[Footnote 25] For program year 2005 [Footnote 26], of the 48 states that could provide funding information, 23 states identified WIA programs as the primary funding source and 19 states reported it was the Employment Service program. In addition, 27 states reported using TANF funds to pay for part of their one-stop center infrastructure costs, and 3 states identified TANF as the primary funding source. In 2007, TANF was on-site at a typical one-stop in 30 states.[Footnote 27] Increasing Colocation of Services in One-Stop Centers and Consolidating State Administrative Structures May Increase Efficiencies: One-stop centers required under WIA provide an opportunity for a broad array of federal employment and training programs--both required and optional programs--to coordinate their services and avoid duplication. Although WIA does not require that programs be colocated within the one-stop center, this is one option that programs may use to provide services within the one-stop structure. Labor's policy is to encourage colocation of all required programs to the extent possible; however, officials acknowledged that colocation is one of multiple means for achieving service integration. We previously reported that colocating services can result in improved communication among programs, improved delivery of services for clients, and elimination of duplication.[Footnote 28] While colocation does not guarantee efficiency improvements, it affords the potential for sharing resources and cross-training staff, and may lead, in some cases, to the consolidation of administrative systems, such as information technology systems. Our early study of promising one-stop practices found that the centers nominated as exemplary did just that--they cross-trained program staff, consolidated case management and intake procedures across multiple programs, and developed shared data systems.[Footnote 29] Other types of linkages between programs, such as electronic linkages or referrals, may not result in the same types of efficiency improvements, but they may still present opportunities to streamline services. Consolidating administrative structures and colocating services may increase efficiencies, but implementation could pose challenges. [Footnote 30] Florida, Texas, and Utah have consolidated their workforce and welfare agencies[Footnote 31] and officials said that this reduced costs and improved the quality of services for participants, but they could not provide a dollar figure for cost savings. Even when states consolidate their agencies, they must still follow separate requirements for individual programs. With regard to colocating services, WIA Adult and the Employment Service are generally colocated in one-stop centers, but TANF employment and training services are colocated in one-stops to a lesser extent. Efforts to increase colocation could prove challenging due to issues such as limited available office space, differences in client needs and the programs' client service philosophies, and the need for programs to help fund the operating costs of the one-stop centers. [Footnote 32] While states and localities have undertaken some potentially promising initiatives to achieve greater administrative efficiencies, little information is available about the strategies and results of these initiatives, so it is unclear the extent to which practices in these states could serve as models for others. Moreover, little is known about the incentives states and localities have to undertake such initiatives and whether additional incentives may be needed. We recently recommended that the Secretaries of Labor and HHS work together to develop and disseminate information that could inform such efforts, including information on state initiatives to consolidate program administrative structures and state and local efforts to colocate additional programs at one-stop centers. As part of this effort, we recommended that Labor and HHS examine the incentives for states and localities to undertake such initiatives and, as warranted, identify options for increasing them. In their responses, Labor and HHS agreed with our recommendations. In addition, GAO is currently examining innovative one-stop strategies to enhance collaboration with employers and economic development partners to better meet local labor market needs. To the extent that colocating services and consolidating administrative structures reduce administrative costs, funds could potentially be available to serve more clients or for other purposes. For the TANF program alone, GAO estimated that states spent about $160 million to administer employment and training services in fiscal year 2009. According to a Department of Labor official, the administrative costs for the WIA Adult program were at least $56 million in program year 2009. Officials told GAO they do not collect data on the administrative costs associated with the Employment Service program, as they are not a separately identifiable cost in the legislation. Labor officials said that, on average, the agency spends about $4,000 for each WIA Adult participant who receives training services. Congress Needs Better Information on Program Performance to Address Fragmentation, Overlap, and Potential Duplication in Employment and Training Programs: Making informed decisions about where to invest scarce resources requires information about what's working and what's not but, despite improvements, performance data do not provide a complete picture of the employment and training system. Nearly all employment and training programs track multiple outcome measures and many programs track similar measures--most often an "entered employment" rate (the number of participants who found jobs), employment retention, and wage gain or change. We have made a number of recommendations regarding the performance management systems of the key employment and training programs, and Labor has made some progress addressing our concerns. However, two issues remain. First, only a small proportion of job seekers who receive services at one-stops are reflected in WIA outcome data. While customers who use self-services are estimated to be the largest portion of those served under WIA, job seekers who receive self-service or informational services are specifically excluded from performance calculations by the statute. Second, WIA's performance measurement system contains no provision for measuring overall one- stop performance, relying instead on a program-by-program approach that cannot easily be used to assess the overall performance of the one-stop system. Information about the effectiveness of these programs can also help guide policymakers and program managers in making decisions about how to improve, coordinate, or consolidate existing programs. However, little is known about the effectiveness of employment and training programs because only 5 of the 47 programs reported that they had conducted any impact studies since 2004.[Footnote 33] Impact studies, which allow for determining the extent to which a program is causing participant outcomes, can be difficult and expensive to conduct because they take steps to examine what would have happened in the absence of a program to isolate its impact from other factors. [Footnote 34] Such studies may not be cost-effective for smaller programs, particularly in periods of tight budgets, but strategically chosen impact studies can be an important means for understanding where efficiencies can be achieved. Labor has been slow to comply with a requirement to conduct a multi-site control group evaluation of the WIA-funded programs.[Footnote 35] In 2004 and 2007, we recommended that Labor comply with the requirements of the law and conduct an impact evaluation of WIA services to better understand what services are most effective for improving outcomes. Since then, Labor has completed a nonexperimental study of the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and also has an experimental design impact study of these programs currently under way. The nonexperimental study found that the WIA Adult program had positive impacts on average earnings up to 4 years after participant entry, but noted that the magnitude of this effect could have been due to the selection of applicants with greater income prior to participation and better job prospects. The study found that the impacts for participants in the Dislocated Worker program were also positive, but smaller.[Footnote 36] Labor expects that the experimental design impact study currently underway will examine impact by funding stream, but will not be completed until June 2015.[Footnote 37] Understanding how well the one-stop system is reducing fragmentation through coordinated service delivery would be useful in deciding where efficiencies could be achieved, but no study has been undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of the one-stop system approach. While a few program impact studies have been done or are underway, these studies largely take a program-by-program approach rather than focusing on understanding which approaches are most effective in streamlining service delivery and improving one-stop efficiency. In addition, Labor's efforts to collaborate with other agencies to assess the effects of different strategies to integrate job seeker services have been limited. We previously recommended that Labor collaborate with Education, HHS, and HUD to develop a research agenda that examines the impacts of various approaches to program integration on job seeker and employer satisfaction and outcomes.[Footnote 38] Labor has committed to collaborating with other agencies and has involved them in developing inter-agency initiatives for certain targeted activities, but has not yet evaluated the effectiveness of the one- stop system. In January 2011, the President signed the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA),[Footnote 39] further amending the almost two-decades- old Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).[Footnote 40] Implementing provisions of the new act--such as its requirement to establish outcome-oriented goals covering a limited number of crosscutting policy areas--could play an important role in clarifying desired outcomes, addressing program performance spanning multiple organizations, and facilitating future actions to reduce unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation. Specifically, GPRAMA requires (1) disclosure of information about accuracy and validity, (2) data on crosscutting areas, and (3) quarterly reporting on priority goals on a publicly available Web site. Additionally, GPRAMA significantly enhances requirements for agencies to consult with Congress when establishing or adjusting governmentwide and agency goals. This information can inform deliberations on spending priorities and help re-examine the fundamental structure, operation, funding, and performance of a number of federal programs. However, to be successful, it will be important for agencies to build the analytical capacity to both use the performance information, and to ensure its quality--both in terms of staff trained to do the analysis and availability of research and evaluation resources. In conclusion, removing and preventing unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation among federal employment and training programs is clearly challenging. These are difficult issues to address because they may require agencies and Congress to re-examine within and across various mission areas the fundamental structure, operation, funding, and performance of a number of long-standing federal programs and activities. Implementing provisions of GPRAMA could play an important role in clarifying desired outcomes, addressing program performance spanning multiple organizations, and facilitating future actions to reduce unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation. Sustained attention and oversight by Congress will also be critical. Our work highlights two key areas where congressional oversight could facilitate progress: * Enhancing program evaluations and performance information; and: * Fostering state and local innovation in integrating services and consolidating administrative structures. As the nation rises to meet its current fiscal challenges, GAO will continue to assist Congress and federal agencies in identifying actions needed to address these issues. Likewise, we will continue to monitor developments in the areas we have already identified. Chairman Rehberg, Ranking Member DeLauro, and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have at this time. GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include Dianne Blank, Caitlin Croake, Pamela Davidson, Patrick Dibattista, Alex Galuten, Andrew Nelson, Paul Schearf, and Kathleen Van Gelder. [End of section] Appendix I: Federally Funded Employment and Training Programs by Agency, Fiscal Year 2009: Department of Labor: * Community-Based Job Training Grants; * Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program; * Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities; * H-1B Job Training Grants; * Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Project; * Job Corps; * Local Veterans’ Employment Representative Program; * National Farmworker Jobs Program; * Native American Employment and Training; * Registered Apprenticeship and Other Training; * Reintegration of Ex-Offenders; * Senior Community Service Employment Program; * Trade Adjustment Assistance; * Transition Assistance Program; * Veterans’ Workforce Investment Program; * WIA Adult Program; * WIA Youth Activities; * WIA Dislocated Workers; * WIA National Emergency Grants; * WANTO; * YouthBuild. Department of Education: * American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services; * Career and Technical Education – Basic Grants to States; * Career and Technical Education – Indian Set-aside; * Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Individuals; * Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program; * Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education; * Projects with Industry; * Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States; * State-Supported Employment Services Program; * Tech-Prep Education; * Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions. Department of Health and Human Services: * Community Services Block Grant; * Refugee and Entrant Assistance – Voluntary Agency Matching Grant Program; * Refugee and Entrant Assistance – Targeted Assistance Grants; * Refugee and Entrant Assistance – Social Services Program; * Refugee and Entrant Assistance – Targeted Assistance Discretionary Program; * Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; * Tribal Work Grants[A]. Department of the Interior: * Conservation Activities by Youth Service Organizations[B]; * Indian Employment Assistance; * Indian Vocational Training – United Tribes Technical College. Department of Agriculture: * SNAP Employment and Training Program. Department of Defense: * National Guard Youth Challenge Program. Environmental Protection Agency: * Brownfield Job Training Cooperative Agreements. Department of Justice: * Second Chance Act Prisoner Reentry Initiative. Department of Veterans Affairs: * Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans[C]. Source: GAO analysis. [A] Also known as the Native Employment Works program. [B] For the purposes of our study, this program includes several programs administered by Interior's National Park Service: Public Lands Corps, Youth Conservation Corps, Youth Intern Program, and Youth Partnership Program. [C] Also known as the VetSuccess program. [End of section] Related GAO Products: Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-441T]. Washington, D.C.: March 3, 2011. Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP]. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2011. Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92]. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2011. Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Made Progress in Addressing Areas of Concern, but More Focus Needed on Understanding What Works and What Doesn't. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-396T]. Washington, D.C.: February 26, 2009. Workforce Development: Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers Collaborate to Meet 21st Century Workforce Needs. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-547]. Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2008. Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop System Infrastructure Continues to Evolve, but Labor Should Take Action to Require That All Employment Service Offices Are Part of the System. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1096]. Washington, D.C.: September 4, 2007. Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve the Workforce System. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1051T]. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007. Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but Little is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-650]. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005. Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-657]. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004. Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve Quality of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-308]. Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2004. Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information Sharing is Needed. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-725]. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003. Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and Performance Measures for Major Programs. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-589]. Washington, D.C.: April 18, 2003. Workforce Investment Act: States' Spending Is on Track, but Better Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-239]. Washington, D.C.: November 22, 2002. Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-274]. Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2002. Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Indicate Need for Closer Examination of Structure. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-71]. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 2000. Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of TANF Services. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-00-145]. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000. Multiple Employment Training Programs: Information Crosswalk on 163 Employment Training Programs. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-95-85FS]. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 1995. Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to Reduce Costs, Streamline the Bureaucracy, and Improve Results. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-95-53]. Washington, D.C.: January 10, 1995. Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlap Among Programs Raises Questions About Efficiency. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-94-193]. Washington, D.C.: July 11, 1994. Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements Underscore Need for Change. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-94-120]. Washington, D.C.: March 10, 1994. Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Major Overhaul is Needed. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-94-109]. Washington, D.C.: March 3, 1994. Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Can Add Unnecessary Administrative Costs. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-94-80]. Washington, D.C.: January 28, 1994. Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements Hamper Delivery of Services. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-94-78]. Washington, D.C.: January 28, 1994. [End of section] Footnotes: [1] Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936. [2] GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011). An interactive, Web-based version of the report is available at: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ereport/gao-11-318SP]. [3] GAO, Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies, GAO-11-92 (Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2011). [4] We defined an employment and training program as a program that is specifically designed to enhance the specific job skills of individuals in order to increase their employability, identify job opportunities, and/or help job seekers obtain employment. We excluded certain programs that did not meet this definition, did not provide employment and training services, or were components of other employment and training programs. We included programs with broader missions if a primary purpose of the program was to provide employment and training assistance, including multipurpose block grants and career and technical education programs. We did not conduct a legal analysis in order to identify the programs or to determine their objectives, requirements, or goals. [5] For information on the amount each program reported spending on employment and training services in fiscal year 2009, and the estimated amount spent in fiscal year 2010, see [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92], appendixes II and III. [6] For information on the estimated number of participants receiving employment and training services, by program, see [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92], appendix IV. [7] Officials provided estimates for the most recent year for which data were available. Reported participant numbers for the Employment Service program are for 2009, and reported participant numbers for the WIA Adult program are for 2008. [8] We also found that five of the six programs that target veterans provide seven similar types of employment and training services, and the five programs that target youth provide seven similar types of employment and training services. [9] Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115. [10] 25 U.S.C. §3403. [11] This is part of the Administration's broader proposal to consolidate 9 Rehabilitation Act programs administered by Education into 3 programs. Some of these programs do not meet our definition of an employment and training program. [12] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92]. To identify areas of potential duplication across the 47 programs, we selected the TANF, Employment Service, and WIA Adult programs for more in-depth analysis. We selected these three programs because our prior work indicated they had the potential for duplication based on a high degree of overlap, and they were also among the largest of the 47 programs in terms of the amount spent on employment and training services. [13] The WIA Adult program gives priority for intensive and training services to recipients of public assistance and other low-income individuals when program funds are limited. [14] To reduce dependency, TANF requires many cash assistance recipients to participate in work activities such as subsidized employment, on-the-job training, or community service. [15] Labor's estimate likely understates the number of TANF recipients served by the WIA Adult program, as the program collects information on TANF receipt only if participants receive intensive or training services. Further, HHS officials told us that data are not available at the federal level on the total number of individuals who receive TANF employment and training services because HHS lacks the legal authority to require such reporting. [16] Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936 (1998). [17] David H. Bradley, The Workforce Investment Act and the One-Stop Delivery System, a report prepared for the Congressional Research Service (Washington, D.C., Jan.10, 2011). According to CRS, WIA also amended the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, which establishes the Employment Service, to make the Employment Service an integral part of the one-stop system. [18] For the repeal of JTPA, see Pub. L. No. 105-220 §199(b)(2), (c)(2)(B), 112 Stat. 936, 1059. For the new WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs, see §§ 131 et seq., 112 Stat. 936, 982. For the new WIA Youth program, see §§ 126 et seq., 112 Stat. 936, 971. [19] Unlike the JTPA adult program, WIA imposes no income eligibility requirements for adults receiving any of its core services. [20] Pub. L. No. 105-220 §134(c), 112 Stat. 936, 992. WIA required that one-stop centers be established in local workforce investment areas in all participating states. States are responsible for designating local workforce investment areas, and each state must have one or more local areas. As of April 2007, we found that the number of local areas in each state ranged from 1 to 50. [21] Pub. L. No. 105-220 §134(c)(2)(A), 112 Stat. 936, 993. [22] According to Labor officials, although WIA required 17 categories of programs to participate in the one-stop system, the Welfare-to-Work program has been discontinued, reducing the total to include 16 categories of required programs. For the purposes of this report, we refer to these 16 categories of programs as "required programs." [23] Fiscal year 2010 appropriations were reported by federal agency officials in GAO's 2010 survey of employment and training programs. Because the TANF program is not required to provide services through the one-stop system, the appropriations represented by these 13 program categories do not include appropriations for the TANF program. [24] See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop System Infrastructure Continues to Evolve, but Labor Should Take Action to Require That All Employment Service Offices Are Part of the System, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1096] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 4, 2007). [25] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1096]. We defined infrastructure costs as the nonpersonnel costs necessary for the general operation of a one-stop center, including the rental costs of the facilities, costs of utilities and maintenance, and equipment (including adaptive technology for individuals with disabilities). [26] Program year 2005 ran from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. [27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1096]. [28] Specifically, we reported that colocating community college staff at one-stop centers can result in these benefits. See GAO, Workforce Development: Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers Collaborate to Meet 21ST Century Workforce Needs, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-547] (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2008). [29] See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information Sharing is Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-725] (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003). As part of this study, we visited 14 one-stop centers which were identified as exemplary by government officials and workforce development experts. [30] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92]. [31] In Utah, the workforce agency administers the TANF program in its entirety; in Florida and Texas the workforce system administers only TANF employment and training services. [32] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92]. [33] However, agencies may currently have impact studies under way. [34] The five impact studies identified by officials generally found that the effects of participation were not consistent across programs, with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts. [35] 29 U.S.C. § 2917(c). [36] Carolyn J. Heinrich, Peter R. Mueser, and Kenneth R. Troske, Workforce Investment Act Nonexperimental Net Impact Evaluation, Final Report, December 2008. This nonexperimental study was a net impact evaluation that used a closely matched comparison group design rather than a random assignment design to assess the impact of the programs on participants' postprogram earnings. [37] The WIA impact study currently underway uses a random assignment experimental design to assess programs' impacts on participants' post program employment and earnings and their cost effectiveness. [38] GAO, Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information Sharing is Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-725]. (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003). [39] Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). [40] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). [End of section] GAO's Mission: The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select "E-mail Updates." Order by Phone: The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: Contact: Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: Congressional Relations: Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: (202) 512-4400: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7125: Washington, D.C. 20548: Public Affairs: Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: (202) 512-4800: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7149: Washington, D.C. 20548: