Since Our 2003 Report, the Number of Federal Employment and Training Programs and Funding for Them Have Increased Due to the Recovery Act

The number of employment and training programs and their funding have  increased since our 2003 report when we last reported on them. Together, these programs  spent approximately $18 billion on employment and training services in  fiscal year 2009, according to our survey data. This is an increase of 3  programs and about $5 billion from our 2003 report. Nearly All Programs Track Multiple Outcome Measures, but Little is Known about Program Effectiveness

Almost all programs tracked multiple outcome measures related to  employment and training, and many programs tracked similar measures. Little is known about the effectiveness of the employment and training  programs we identified because only 5 reported demonstrating whether  outcomes can be attributed to the program through an impact study, and  about half of all the programs have not had a performance review since  2004. Almost All Programs Overlap with at Least One Other Program, but Differences May Exist in Eligibility, Objectives, and Service Delivery

All but 3 of the programs we surveyed overlap with at least 1 other  program, in that they provide at least one similar service to a similar  population. In addition, nine of these require  participants to be economically disadvantaged. The target populations  being served by the most programs are Native Americans, veterans, and  youth. While the Extent to Which Individuals Receive the Same Services From Multiple Programs is Unknown, the TANF, ES, and WIA Adult Programs Maintain Separate Administrative Structures to Provide Some of the Same Services

The TANF, ES, and WIA Adult programs provide some of the same  employment and training services to low-income individuals, despite  differences between the programs. Labor and HHS officials  acknowledged that greater efficiencies could be achieved in delivering  employment and training services through these programs, but said they  do not believe that these programs are duplicative. Options for Increasing Efficiencies Include Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures, but Implementation Can Be Challenging

		Colocating Services

Colocating the employment and training services provided by the TANF,  ES, and WIA Adult programs may increase administrative efficiencies. Officials in the three states,  however, could not provide a dollar figure for the cost savings that  resulted from consolidation. However, achieving the potential benefits of colocation  may require states and localities to address a variety of challenges: how to  serve additional clients given the limited capacity of one-stop centers and  potential lease restrictions; how to navigate philosophical differences  between programs and address the multiple needs of TANF clients in the  one-stop center setting; how to ensure that services are geographically  accessible; whether the potential benefits of colocating TANF in one-stop  centers outweigh the potential costs of no longer colocating these services  with other services for low-income families, in some cases; and whether,  and to what extent, TANF will contribute to one-stop center operating  costs. Florida, Texas,  and Utah have taken the initiative to consolidate their state workforce and  welfare agencies, and report that they reduced administrative costs and  improved services for job seekers. While states and localities have undertaken some potentially promising  initiatives to achieve greater administrative efficiencies, a major obstacle  to further progress on this front is that little information is available about  the strategies and results of these initiatives, including improvements to  services and reductions in costs. In addition, little  is known about the incentives states and localities have to undertake such  initiatives and whether additional incentives may be needed. As a part of this effort,  Labor and HHS should examine the incentives for states and localities to  undertake such initiatives and, as warranted, identify options for  increasing such incentives. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

	Program Selection

We identified federally funded employment and training programs by  reviewing the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA), the  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), and  interviewing agency officials.
Why GAO Did This Study

Federally funded employment and training programs play an important role in helping job seekers obtain employment. The Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services (HHS) largely administer these programs. GAO's objectives were to determine: (1) whether the number of federal employment and training programs and funding for them have changed since our 2003 report, (2) what kinds of outcome measures the programs use and what is known about program effectiveness, (3) the extent to which the programs provide similar services to similar populations, (4) the extent to which duplication may exist among selected large programs, and (5) what options exist for increasing efficiencies among these programs. To address these objectives, GAO searched federal program lists, surveyed federal agency officials, reviewed relevant reports and studies, and interviewed officials in selected states.

What GAO Found

Due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), both the number of--and funding for--federal employment and training programs have increased since our 2003 report, but little is known about the effectiveness of most programs. In fiscal year 2009, 9 federal agencies spent approximately $18 billion to administer 47 programs--an increase of 3 programs and roughly $5 billion since our 2003 report. This increase is due to temporary Recovery Act funding. Nearly all programs track multiple outcome measures, but only five programs have had an impact study completed since 2004 to assess whether outcomes resulted from the program and not some other cause. Almost all federal employment and training programs, including those with broader missions such as multipurpose block grants, overlap with at least one other program in that they provide similar services to similar populations. These programs most commonly target Native Americans, veterans, and youth, and some require participants to be economically disadvantaged. Although the extent to which individuals receive the same employment and training services from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Employment Service (ES), and Workforce Investment Act Adult (WIA Adult) programs is unknown, the programs maintain separate administrative structures to provide some of the same services, such as job search assistance, to low-income individuals. Agency officials acknowledged that greater administrative efficiencies could be achieved in delivering these services, but said factors, such as the number of clients that any one-stop center can serve and one-stops' proximity to clients, particularly in rural areas, could warrant having multiple entities provide the same services. Options that may increase efficiencies include colocating services and consolidating administrative structures, but implementation may pose challenges. While WIA Adult and ES services are generally colocated in one-stop centers, TANF employment services are colocated in one-stops to a lesser extent. Florida, Texas, and Utah have consolidated their welfare and workforce agencies, and state officials said this reduced costs and improved services, but they could not provide a dollar figure for cost savings. An obstacle to further progress in achieving greater administrative efficiencies is that little information is available about the strategies and results of such initiatives. In addition, little is known about the incentives states and localities have to undertake such initiatives and whether additional incentives may be needed. Labor and HHS should disseminate information about state efforts to consolidate administrative structures and colocate services and, as warranted, identify options for increasing incentives to undertake these initiatives. In their comments, Labor and HHS agreed that they should disseminate this information.