Labor has given this  authority to 27 states, the District of Columbia, and three territories. Council-monitored states not only have more programs, but these  programs are more likely to be jointly sponsored by employers and unions  than sponsored by employers alone. Labor  does collect aggregate data on apprentices and programs from these  states. Labor’s Monitoring of Registered Apprenticeship Programs Is Limited

Although OATELS is responsible for overseeing thousands of  apprenticeship programs in the states where it has direct oversight, it  reviews few of these programs each year. Federal apprenticeship directors in  these states reported they conducted 379 quality reviews in 2004, covering  only about 4 percent of the programs under their watch. While Labor Collects Much Information about Apprenticeship Programs, It Does Not Systematically Use Data to Focus Its Oversight

Although Labor collects information to compute completion rates and  track participants who do not complete programs in the time expected, it  does not use these data to focus its oversight efforts on programs with  poor performance. Labor Has Reviewed Council-Monitored States Infrequently, Provided Little Feedback, and Not Collected Data That Would Allow for a National Picture of Apprenticeships

Labor has infrequently reviewed states to which it has delegated oversight  responsibility. While incompatible data systems may suggest that it would be difficult or  costly to obtain more than aggregate counts, in collecting data for this  report, we found many of the council-monitored states—including 10 with  large numbers of apprentices—were both willing and capable of providing  us data on apprentices by industry and by occupation as well as  information on completion rates, completion times, and some wage data  for occupations that we had specified. Construction Apprenticeship Completion Rates and Wages Vary by Program Sponsor

Construction apprentices in programs sponsored jointly by employers and  unions (joint programs) generally completed at a higher rate and in greater  numbers than those enrolled in programs sponsored by employers alone  (non-joint programs). Recommendations

We recommend that the Secretary of Labor take steps to (1) better utilize  information in Labor’s database, such as indicators of program  performance, for management oversight, particularly for apprenticeship  programs in occupations with expected future labor shortages; (2) develop  a cost-effective strategy for collecting data from council-monitored states;  (3) conduct Labor’s reviews of apprenticeship activities in states that  regulate their own programs on a regular basis to ensure that state  activities are in accord with Labor’s requirements for recognition of  apprenticeship programs; and (4) offer substantive feedback to states from  its reviews. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which the  U.S. Department of Labor monitors the operations and outcomes of  registered apprenticeship programs in the states where it has direct  oversight, (2) its oversight activities for council-monitored states, and   (3) outcomes for construction apprentices in programs sponsored jointly  by employers and unions in relation to those sponsored by employers  alone. To examine the outcomes for apprentices in the construction industry, we  analyzed data from Labor’s RAIS database.
Why GAO Did This Study

Between 2002 and 2012 nearly 850,000 jobs will open in the construction industry; experts predict that there will not be enough skilled workers to fill them. This has heightened concerns about program outcomes and program quality in the nation's apprenticeship system and the U.S. Department of Labor's oversight of it. GAO assessed (1) the extent to which Labor monitors registered apprenticeship programs in the states where it has direct oversight, (2) its oversight activities in states that do their own monitoring, and (3) the outcomes for construction apprentices in programs sponsored by employers and unions in relation to programs sponsored by employers alone.

What GAO Found

Labor's monitoring of programs it directly oversees has been limited. We found that in 2004 Labor reviewed only 4 percent of programs in the 23 states where it has direct oversight. According to federal program directors in those states, limited staff constrained their ability to do more reviews. Also, Labor has focused in recent years on registering new programs and recruiting apprentices. Although Labor collects much data about the programs it oversees, it has not employed its database to generate information indicative of program performance, such as completion rates, that might allow it to be more efficient in its oversight. Labor does not regularly review council-monitored states or collect data from them that would allow for a national picture of apprenticeships. Labor is responsible for conducting formal reviews of the 27 states and the District of Columbia that established apprenticeship councils to monitor their own apprenticeship programs; but, according to directors in these states, the reviews have been infrequent and not necessarily useful. While Labor collects only aggregate data on apprentices from these states, we identified 10 states with large numbers of apprentices that were willing and capable of providing GAO data on apprentices by occupation as well as some information on completion rates, completion times, and wages. Data in Labor's apprenticeship database and from council-monitored states show that completion rates and wages for construction apprentices in programs sponsored jointly by employers and unions were higher than those for programs sponsored by employers alone. We found that completion rates for apprentices in programs jointly sponsored by unions and employers were 47 percent on average compared with 30 percent in programs sponsored solely by employers. Completion rates declined under both types of sponsorship for the period we examined, but Labor, as part of its oversight, does not track reasons for noncompletion, making it difficult to determine what lies behind this trend.