In our 2007 survey, states reported that 13 of the 16 mandatory  programs required under WIA were available at the majority of  comprehensive one-stop centers. Over the last 4 years, 19 states reported a decrease in  one-stop centers, frequently identifying a decrease in funds as one of the  primary reasons. In contrast, 10 states reported an increase during this  period, citing, among other reasons, an increase in demand for services  and an increase in the number of on-site partners. While states reported they were providing Wagner-Peyser-funded  Employment Service on-site at one-stop centers, some states also provided  services through stand-alone Employment Service facilities—offices that  focus primarily on job search and placement assistance. While Labor has the option  to withhold funding, it has not done so, but has taken other steps to  encourage states to provide all employment services through the one-stop  system. Despite the range of Labor’s efforts, states have made only  modest progress in bringing these systems together. WIA and the Employment Service were the two  programs most often identified as funding sources used for  infrastructure—the nonpersonnel costs—of operating comprehensive one- stop centers. Three states  reported that TANF funds were the largest funding source. Of the states that could report, more states reported that a  greater percentage of their Employment Service funds than WIA funds  were used to finance the infrastructure of the one-stop comprehensive  centers. Moreover, for program year 2005, states reported less reliance on other  programs for funding the one-stop infrastructure costs than in the past. In  addition, 12 states reported that they had established measures for  customer satisfaction beyond what is required. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our study assessed (1) the current composition of states’ one-stop systems  and how this has changed over time, (2) what funds are primarily used to  support states’ one-stop system infrastructure and how this has changed  over time, and (3) the extent to which states are monitoring customer  satisfaction with service delivery at one-stop centers. To provide information on how state and local one-stop delivery systems  established under Workforce Investment Act (WIA) deliver employment  and training services to job seekers and employers, we conducted an  electronic survey of state workforce officials in 50 states. The survey included questions on states’ one-stop delivery systems related  to the    numbers of local workforce investment areas and participants served;    numbers of comprehensive one-stop centers, satellite or affiliated sites,  and how these changed from program year 2003 to April 1, 2007;  infrastructure cost data for program year 2005;    use of stand-alone Employment Service offices;    mandatory programs and how these services were provided;    extent of integration of certain functions (e.g., reception area,  information systems, and intake forms) at comprehensive one-stop  centers; and    program monitoring of customer satisfaction.
Why GAO Did This Study

In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), requiring states and localities to bring together employment and training programs into a single workforce system, the one-stop system. States have flexibility in how they provide these services--colocated within the one-stop--through electronic linkage or referral. WIA did not provide funds to pay for the infrastructure costs, but programs must share the costs of operating one-stop centers. As Congress considers reauthorization of WIA, GAO assessed (1) the current composition of states' one-stop systems and how this has changed, (2) what funds are primarily used to support states' one-stop system infrastructure and how this has changed, and (3) the extent to which states are monitoring customer satisfaction. Our work was primarily based on a 50-state survey of state workforce officials, updating work we previously did in 2000 and 2001.

What GAO Found

Over the last 4 years, 19 states reported a decrease in one-stop centers, often citing a decrease in funds as one of the primary reasons. At the same time, 10 states reported an increase, citing an increase in demand for services and an increase in on-site programs. In our 2007 survey, states reported that 13 of the 16 mandatory programs were available at the majority of one-stop centers. States reported they were providing Wagner-Peyser-funded Employment Service on-site at one-stop centers, but some states also provided services through stand-alone Employment Service offices--facilities that focus primarily on job search and placement assistance. While states are required to maintain these offices within the one-stop delivery system, 9 states reported operating at least one stand-alone office unaffiliated with the one-stop system. While Labor has taken steps to encourage states to provide all employment services through the one-stop system, states have made only modest progress in bringing these systems together. WIA and Employment Service were the largest funding sources for states to support the infrastructure--the nonpersonnel costs--of their one-stop centers. Of the two programs, states reported that a greater percentage of Employment Service funds than WIA funds were used for infrastructure costs. States also reported less reliance on other programs to support the infrastructure costs than in the past. Nearly all states reported that they submitted customer satisfaction data to Labor for program year 2005. In addition, 12 states reported that they have established additional customer satisfaction measures beyond those required by Labor.