NASWA Winter Policy Forum, 2002

1. NASWAWinter Policy Forum, 2002 Workforce Investment Act: GAO’s Recent Findings and Issues for Reauthorization Sigurd Nilsen, Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security

2. Recent GAO Work on WIA • 3 Completed Efforts: • WIA Implementation Efforts • WIA Performance Measures • Dislocated Worker Assistance Under WIA • All 3 efforts completed at the request of: • Senator Kennedy, Chairman, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; and Senator Jeffords • Other ongoing efforts: • WIA’s youth services • Integration of TANF and WIA services

3. Overall Observations From Our Work • WIA represents a major shift in workforce development -- the transition is taking time and implementers need more clear guidance from federal agencies • Tension exists between accountability and local flexibility • Current data systems have comparability problems and may limit our ability to know what success WIA is having • System continues to foster a siloed approach at the one-stop

4. Review of Implementation Issues • Study Objectives • Identify issues of particular concern to implementers, focusing on partner participation, customer choice, private sector involvement. • Scope and Methodology • Site visits to California, Pennsylvania, and Vermont • Interviews with Labor, Education, HHS, & HUD officials and national associations, such as NASWA, NAWB, NGA, and NACo. • Surveys conducted by two national associations • Expert panel of officials from key associations

5. WIA Implementation IssuesKey Findings • Mandatory partner participation in one-stops is limited • Changes in service delivery may have adverse effect on their target populations • Changes may lead to serving ineligible individuals • Partners identified resource constraints • Training options may become more limited in the new system • Providers said data collection was burdensome • Few individuals were sent to training

6. WIA Implementation IssuesKey Findings • Current board operation may discourage private sector participation • Private-sector representatives think large boards preclude efficient operation • Board staffs and committees may not reflect employer interests

7. WIA Implementation IssuesActions to Consider • State and local implementers identified some actions to address concerns: • Amend partners’ enabling legislation • Give partners incentives to participate • Provide additional/separate funds for one-stops • Change reporting requirements for training providers • Provide administrative bonus for data collection costs • Amend privacy limitations • Require private sector participation for staff, committees

8. WIA Implementation IssuesGAO’s Recommendations • Labor, Education, HHS, and HUD should: • Jointly explore and address programmatic and financial barriers • Provide best-practice information on cost-effective methods for data collection and address privacy restrictions • Provide best-practice information on effective board operations • Congress should consider extending initial eligibility for training providers to work out data collection and reporting problems

9. Review of WIA Performance Measures • Study Objectives • Assess states’ progress in implementing new performance measures and the usefulness of the new measures. • Scope and Methodology • 50-state survey of WIA program administrators • Site visits to Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Oregon, and Pennsylvania • Interviews with Labor officials and national associations, such as NASWA, NAWB, and NGA.

10. WIA Performance MeasuresKey Findings • States and localities are making progress implementing the new system, but faced challenges • Management info systems are still being developed • Measures were complex and difficult to understand • States had to adopt procedures to access sensitive information in UI database • States believed performance levels were set too high and the levels may affect who gets registered under WIA

11. WIA Performance MeasuresKey Findings • Performance measures may not accurately assess performance of the 3 WIA-funded programs • Data accuracy and comparability may be affected by: • Lack of clear guidance from Labor (esp. registration policies and credential measures) • Timeliness and coverage of UI data • Data timeliness limits use of measures for management

12. WIA Performance MeasuresKey Findings • Measures fail to gauge overall one-stop performance • Separate measures used for one-stop program partners fail to capture important one-stop features, cannot be combined to yield an overall score, and may impede coordination • Limited progress seen in developing performance measures for the one-stop at the federal level

13. WIA Performance MeasuresGAO Recommendations • Department of Labor should: • Delay application of financial sanctions for at least 1 year (or until it is judged that states have their data systems in place to track outcomes) • Expedite the release of guidance on revising negotiated performance levels and allow states to immediately begin the process of re-negotiation • Provide clear guidance on: • who to register as a WIA participant • what constitutes a credential • Continue to fully fund WRIS

14. WIA Performance MeasuresGAO Recommendations • Department of Labor should: • Develop ways to share promising approaches in closing the data gaps in UI and in addressing the timeliness issues associated with UI data • Ensure the development of optional one-stop measures in enough time for implementation by PY 2002

15. Review of WIA Dislocated Worker Assistance • Study Objectives • Determine how WIA has affected services to dislocated workers, how statewide funds are used, and how well the funding formula matches the population needs. • Scope and Methodology • Two separate 50-state surveys, including DC and PR • Site visits to 6 states, including California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Minnesota • Interviews with Labor officials

16. WIA Dislocated Worker AssistanceKey Findings • Local areas have used their flexibility to tailor services to meet the needs of dislocated workers • Some emphasized job search and placement, leading to fewer dislocated worker registrations • In some areas, fewer dislocated workers received training • Rapid response funding and services varied among the states • Confusion about some of the requirements under WIA--especially registration policies, allowable activities, and the use of rapid response funds

17. WIA Dislocated Worker AssistanceKey Findings • Funding formula is problematic • Distributes funds so that amount varies dramatically from year to year, does not recognize fluctuations in dislocated worker population • None of the factors in the formula are directly linked to dislocations • States unable to conduct meaningful financial planning • States used set-aside funds to support a wide range of services and programs in addition to rapid response • Frequent uses included state administrative activities, support of one-stops, and operations of information systems

18. WIA Dislocated Worker AssistanceGAO Recommendations • Labor should: • Be proactive in identifying areas that emerge as needing additional guidance • Disseminate guidance that is more responsive to the concerns of workforce officials who must implement WIA requirements • Disseminate timely information on best practices developed by local areas to serve dislocated workers • Congress should consider: • Modifying the funding formula to minimize volatility and ensure funds go where needed • Directing Labor to undertake a study of the funding formula

19. Key Themes Are Emerging • States and localities want clearer guidance--Saying it once is not enough! • What they can and can’t do; • What’s worked for others. • Continue to look for ways to help streamline service delivery— • Bring in other partners • Facilitate integration/eliminate siloes • We need to find opportunities to achieve a better balance between flexibility and accountability • Paperwork burdens outweigh the return • Boards can’t be efficient/effective • Building the system and infrastructure takes time

20. Issues for WIA Reauthorization • The 1998 legislation was the first step in rationalizing the nation’s workforce development system. As the Congress considers reauthorization in 2003, some issues need to be addressed: • How many clients are really being served through this new system and how successful are they in getting jobs that lead to self-sufficiency? • How well is the one-stop system achieving the goals of bringing services together under one roof? • Without making additional legislative changes, does the current structure allow for state and local flexibility and innovation?

21. GAO Products on WIA • WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program, GAO-02-274, February 11, 2002. • WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness, GAO-02-275, February 1, 2002. • WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns Over New Requirements, GAO-02-72, October 4, 2001. • WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT: Implementation Status and the Integration of TANF Services,GAO/T-HEHS-00-145, June 29, 2000.

22. Getting Copies of GAO Products • On Line: • Visit www.gao.gov and download • To get daily updates of newly released reports, visit the website and select “subscribe to daily e-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. • Order by mail or by phone: U.S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 202-512-6000 / 202-512-6061 (fax)