	Greater Colocation of Services at One-Stop Centers May Increase Efficiencies

Congress passed WIA partly in response to concerns about fragmentation  and inefficiencies in federal employment and training programs. These 13 program categories represent about 40  percent of the federal appropriations for employment and training  programs in fiscal year 2010. One-stop centers serve as the key access point for a range of services that  help unemployed workers re-enter the workforce—including job search  assistance, skill assessment and case management, occupational skills and  on-the-job training, basic education and literacy training, as well as access  to Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits and other supportive services— and they also assist employers in finding workers. We have previously reported that colocating services  can result in improved communication among programs, improved  delivery of services for clients, and elimination of duplication. Although the potential benefits of colocation are recognized,  implementation may pose challenges. Three of the largest  employment and training programs, 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 (see fig. Susidized employment. At the state level, the  TANF program is typically administered by the state human services or  welfare agency, and the ES and WIA Adult programs are typically  administered by the state workforce agency. We previously recommended that Labor collaborate with  Education, HHS, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development  (HUD) to develop a research agenda that examines the impacts of various  approaches to program integration on job seeker and employer  satisfaction and outcomes. 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; therefore, it  is unclear the extent to which practices in these states could serve as  models for others. 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. 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. Appendix I: Federally Funded Employment and Training Programs by Agency, Fiscal Year 2009

Employment and Training Programs: Opportunities Exist for  Improving Efficiency. Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information  on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures  Could Promote Efficiencies. Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but  Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlap Among Programs  Raises Questions About Efficiency.
Why GAO Did This Study

This testimony discusses the findings from our recent work on federal employment and training programs and our prior work on the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). GAO has recently identified 47 federally-funded employment and training programs for fiscal year 2009, defining them as programs that are specifically designed to enhance the job skills of individuals in order to increase their employability, identify job opportunities, and/or help job seekers obtain employment. These programs, which are administered by nine separate federal agencies--including the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services (HHS)--spent about $18 billion dollars in fiscal year 2009 to provide services such as job search assistance and job counseling to program participants. Seven programs accounted for about three-fourths of this spending, and two--Wagner- Peyser funded Employment Service (ES) and WIA Adult--together reported serving over 18 million individuals, or about 77 percent of the total number of participants served across all programs. Forty-four of the 47 programs we identified, including those with broader missions such as multipurpose block grants, overlap with at least one other program in that they provide at least one similar service to a similar population. However, differences may exist in eligibility, objectives, and service delivery. Almost all of the 47 programs tracked multiple outcome measures related to employment and training, and the most frequently tracked outcome measure was "entered employment." However, little is known about the effectiveness of employment and training programs because, since 2004, only 5 reported conducting an impact study, and about half of all the remaining programs have not had a performance review of any kind. The multiplicity of employment and training programs combined with the limited information regarding impact raise concerns about the extent to which the federally-funded employment and training system is performing as efficiently and effectively as it should. 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 such concerns, 13 years ago Congress passed WIA. This testimony focuses on two areas where we have identified opportunities to promote greater efficiencies: colocating services and consolidating administrative structures

What GAO Found

Increasing colocation of services at a single site, as well as consolidating state workforce and welfare administrative agencies, could increase efficiencies, and several states and localities have undertaken such initiatives. However, implementation may pose challenges and little information is available about the strategies and results of these initiatives. To facilitate further progress in increasing administrative efficiencies, we have previously recommended that the Secretaries of Labor and HHS work together to develop and disseminate information about such efforts. Sustained congressional oversight is pivotal in promoting further efficiencies. Specifically, Congress could explore opportunities to foster state and local innovation in integrating services and consolidating administrative structures.