oversight

Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on State Allocations

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2003-08-28.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

              United States General Accounting Office

GAO           Report to Congressional Requesters




August 2003
              WORKFORCE
              INVESTMENT ACT
              Potential Effects of
              Alternative Formulas
              on State Allocations




GAO-03-1043
Contents


Letter                                                                                                            1


Appendix I             Briefing Slides                                                                            7



Related GAO Products                                                                                             71




                       Abbreviations

                       AFCARS            Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
                       ASU               Area of Substantial Unemployment
                       CPS               Current Population Survey
                       JTPA              Job Training Partnership Act
                       LAUS              Local Area Unemployment Statistics
                       MLS               Mass Layoff Statistics
                       NVSS              National Vital Statistics System
                       SAIPE             Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates
                       TANF              Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
                       UI                Unemployment Insurance
                       WIA               Workforce Investment Act




                       This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
                       United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further
                       permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or
                       other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to
                       reproduce this material separately.




                       Page i                                     GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, DC 20548




                                   August 28, 2003

                                   The Honorable Judd Gregg
                                   Chairman
                                   The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
                                   Ranking Minority Member
                                   Committee on Health, Education,
                                    Labor, and Pensions
                                   United States Senate

                                   About $3.3 billion in funds were allocated to states in fiscal year 2003 for
                                   Youth, Adult, and Dislocated Worker employment and training programs
                                   under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998. The formulas used to
                                   distribute these funds are generally the same as those used to distribute
                                   funds under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) of 1982, although
                                   WIA target populations and program goals differ from those of JTPA. In
                                   anticipation of the reauthorization of WIA, you asked us to assess current
                                   and proposed formulas for allocating funds to states for these programs
                                   and identify potential alternative allocation formulas. We identified
                                   various issues with the current funding formulas in our April 2003 report.1

                                   For this review, we focused on three questions: (1) Are there alternative
                                   formula factors that are better aligned with current programs and are
                                   based on reliable and more current data? (2) How might changes to the
                                   current formulas affect the distribution of WIA funds among the states? (3)
                                   What are the implications of proposed program and formula changes in
                                   the House’s WIA reauthorization bill (H.R. 1261) for state allocations and
                                   what are some alternatives to these formulas? Our review was limited to
                                   assessing the formulas for allocating funds to the states and did not
                                   include an assessment of formulas used by states to allocate funds to local
                                   areas.

                                   To identify alternatives to the current formulas, we interviewed experts
                                   and reviewed relevant literature and data sources. To determine how
                                   formula changes might affect the distribution of WIA funds, we calculated



                                   1
                                    U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation
                                   Formulas for Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers, GAO-03-636 (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
                                   25, 2003).



                                   Page 1                                    GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
how various alternative formulas might have affected states’ allocations
and funding volatility over the last 5 program years2 (program years 1999 –
2003). Finally, we analyzed the provisions of H.R. 12613 and interviewed
Department of Labor officials to obtain further information about these
provisions. We conducted our field work from December 2002 to July
2003. Our work was conducted in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.

On July 9, 2003, we briefed your offices on the results of our work. This
report conveys the information provided in that briefing.

We identified a set of formula factors that are more clearly aligned with
WIA target populations and are based on reliable and more timely data
than those in the current and proposed formulas. We used these factors to
develop potential alternative formulas that would better target funds to
eligible populations.4 In general, these alternatives would result in some
redistribution of funds due to the elimination of two factors that measure
concentrated unemployment,5 which tend to skew allocations, and less
year-to-year funding volatility than the current formulas. Finally, we found
that the formulas proposed in H.R. 1261 would not address most of the
issues we identified; in fact, most program funds would continue to be
allocated according to the current rather than the proposed formulas,
because of provisions that limit the use of the proposed formulas.

In our assessment of the current and proposed formulas, we identified
several formula factors that were not well aligned with WIA Youth, Adult
and Dislocated Worker program target populations or were based on data
with long time lags. We then identified several potential formula factors
that would be better aligned with current WIA target populations and for
which more timely and reliable data are available. Specifically, the relative
numbers of low-income youth and adults (key target populations for the
Youth and Adult programs) could be better measured with more timely


2
 A program year runs from July 1 to June 30. For example, program year 2003 began on
July 1, 2003.
3
 The Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003 (H.R. 1261) was passed by
the House of Representatives on May 8, 2003.
4
Some of the data sources suggested as alternatives for use in national to state allocations
might not be available at the local level for use in state to local allocations.
5
These factors are excess unemployment and unemployment in Areas of Substantial
Unemployment.




Page 2                                      GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
data from the Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates
(SAIPE).6 Other potential factors for the Youth Program formula—jobless
out-of-school youth, high school dropouts, births to teens,7 and youth in
foster care—would be more direct measures of specific target groups for
that program, although the first two of these potential factors would
require averaging over several years to meet a reasonable level of
reliability for some small states. Additional potential factors for the Adult
Program formula that we identified include measures of the civilian labor
force, which would reflect the broader group of adults eligible for core
services; total unemployment, which would reflect the majority of those
actually served; and public assistance recipients, who may receive priority
for intensive and training services. The alternative Dislocated Worker
factors that we identified—“insured unemployment,”8 “permanent job
losers,”9 and “workers affected by mass layoffs”—are more direct
measures of dislocated workers than the currently used total
unemployment and excess unemployment factors.

Using these factors, we developed several alternative formulas for each of
the three WIA programs and assigned relative weights to these factors that
reflect, to a limited extent, what is known about the relative costs of
serving different target groups and their likely participation rates. In
general, we found that these alternatives would have resulted in a
reduction in year-to-year funding volatility for all three programs and a
redistribution of funds from several states that have unemployment that is
more concentrated in Areas of Substantial Unemployment (ASUs), to a
higher number of states where unemployment is not concentrated in
ASUs. States are allowed to define ASUs, which they do in a way that
maximizes the number of unemployed who are counted as being in ASUs,


6
 The SAIPE provides estimates of the number of children under age 18 in poverty but does
not provide estimates for the specific target group of the current WIA Youth Program—
youth ages 14 to 21. We relied on the estimated number of children under age 18 in poverty
as a proxy for the number of youth in poverty. Labor officials told us that the Census
Bureau would have to develop new estimation models for the SAIPE to estimate the
number of low-income youth in the age group targeted for the WIA Youth Program.
7
 We used data on the number of births to teens ages 14 to 19 as a proxy for the WIA target
group of parenting youth. These data do not directly measure the number of parenting
youth, but rather, the number of teen births in a given year.
8
 Insured unemployment measures individuals who successfully applied for Unemployment
Insurance benefits in the past year, remain unemployed, and have not exhausted benefits.
9
 Permanent job losers are defined as unemployed individuals who have some attachment to
the workforce, are not on temporary layoff, and did not leave their jobs voluntarily.




Page 3                                      GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
which then enables them to receive more funds based on the concentrated
unemployment factors. The redistribution of funds is due primarily to the
exclusion of these factors, which rely to a great extent on how ASUs are
defined and which are now used to distribute two-thirds of Youth and
Adult funds and one-third of Dislocated Worker funds.10 However, because
our calculations of the effects of alternative funding formulas are based on
historical employment and demographic data, these outcomes are
examples of potential outcomes rather than definitive predictions. If the
distribution of unemployment or poverty were to change in the future, the
actual outcomes for states under these alternatives could be very different
from the potential outcomes reported here.

H.R. 1261 would significantly change the structure of current WIA
programs and the formulas used to allocate program funds to the states,
although these changes will probably not result in large shifts in the
distribution of funds among states. Generally, the proposed formulas are
better aligned with the proposed target populations. However, provisions
that limit the amount of funds subject to the proposed formulas and
instead allow some states to have their allocations determined by the old
formulas would limit the impact of the new formulas.

For the Youth Program, H.R. 1261 proposes that a majority of program
funds, no less than 70 percent, be spent on out-of-school youth with
barriers to employment and the remaining percentage spent on low-
income, in-school youth. The proposed formula includes three, equally
weighted factors: total unemployment, disadvantaged youth, and youth
civilian labor force. Overall, the proposed formula is better aligned with
the program’s target population because two of the proposed formula
factors would specifically reflect the youth population, and it eliminates
the two concentrated unemployment factors. However, the total
unemployment factor does not specifically measure youth unemployment,
and none of the proposed factors would directly measure the primary
target group: out-of-school youth. Also, the disadvantaged youth factor
continues to rely on infrequently updated decennial census data.11


10
 One of these factors, excess unemployment, may or may not rely on how ASUs are
defined, depending on the program. For the Dislocated Worker Program, excess
unemployment is calculated based on statewide unemployment; for Youth and Adult
programs, excess unemployment may be based on either statewide or ASU unemployment.
11
 The Census Bureau has proposed that beginning in 2010 the decennial census long-form
questionnaire, which collects unemployment and income data, would be replaced by the
American Community Survey. If approved, this new survey would provide state-level
unemployment and poverty data annually.



Page 4                                    GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
However, even with the proposed changes, most program funds would
continue to be allocated based on the current Youth Program formula,
because the new formula would only apply to funds in excess of fiscal year
2003 state allocations.12 We identified several potential alternative
formulas for the proposed Youth Program that address the issues cited
above.

H.R. 1261 would consolidate the WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and
Wagner-Peyser13 programs into a single Comprehensive Program for
Adults. Dislocated workers would no longer be a designated target group,
although unemployed individuals, including those who are unemployed
due to dislocations, would have priority for some services. The bill
proposes a two-part formula for the Comprehensive Program for Adults
that generally simplifies and consolidates the current formulas and is
better targeted to the proposed target populations. The first part of the
formula essentially replaces the current Wagner-Peyser formula, whereas
the second part of the formula consolidates the formulas for the Adult and
Dislocated Worker programs into a single, combined formula. The first
part of the proposed formula would distribute 26 percent of program funds
to states according to their share of fiscal year 2003 Wagner-Peyser funds;
amounts in excess of the fiscal year 2003 level would be distributed based
on their relative shares of the civilian labor force.14 The second part of the
formula would distribute 74 percent of funds based on states’ relative
shares of total unemployment (60 percent), excess unemployment (25
percent), and disadvantaged adults (15 percent). Three of the proposed
factors—civilian labor force, total unemployment, and economically
disadvantaged adults—measure groups that would be eligible for basic
services or prioritized for intensive and training services. However, the
formula retains the statewide excess unemployment factor that is most
problematic in the current Dislocated Worker formula, and the
disadvantaged adults factor would continue to rely on decennial census
data, which are updated only once a decade.




12
     The amount of funds allocated to states by formula in fiscal year 2003 is $976,945,172.
13
  The Wagner-Peyser program funds a variety of labor exchange services, including
vocational assessments, job search assistance, and job referrals and is an integral part of
the one-stop service delivery system established by WIA.
14
 This partly reflects the current Wagner-Peyser formula, which allocates two-thirds of
program funds based on states’ relative shares of the total civilian labor force and one-third
based on states’ relative shares of unemployment.




Page 5                                          GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
As with the proposed Youth formula, the bill limits the impact of the
proposed formulas. The phase-in provision for the Adult program would
ensure that no state would receive a smaller allocation than it would under
the current WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and Wagner-Peyser
formulas. The provision also provides that any state that would receive
more under the proposed formulas than it would under the current
formulas will receive the new formula amount, but only up to 3 percent
over what it would have received under the current formulas. We
identified several potential alternative formulas for the Comprehensive
Program for Adults that do not include the phase-in provision or the
excess unemployment factor.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor for technical
review and made changes as appropriate.


We are sending copies of the report to the Secretary of Labor and other
interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. The report is also available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at
www.gao.gov. If you or your offices have any questions about this report,
please contact me or Andrew Sherrill at (202) 512-7215. Regina Santucci,
Lorin Obler, and Jerry Fastrup also made key contributions to this report.




Sigurd R. Nilsen
Director, Education, Workforce,
  and Income Security Issues




Page 6                              GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                Appendix I: Briefing Slides
Appendix I: Briefing Slides




          Workforce Investment Act
             State Allocations:
    Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas
                 Briefing for Staff of
          Senator Judd Gregg, Chairman
            Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
              Ranking Minority Member
      Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
          Pensions, United States Senate
                     July 9, 2003




                Page 7                        GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                   Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Objectives


In February we briefed your staff on issues related to Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) allocation formulas for Youth, Adult, and
Dislocated Worker Programs. You then asked us to identify alternative
approaches to allocating WIA funds.
We focused on three questions:
 • Are there alternative formula factors that are better aligned with
   current programs and are based on reliable and more current data?
 • How might changes to the current formulas affect the distribution of
   WIA funds among states?
 • What are the implications of the program and formula changes
   proposed by the House in H.R. 1261 for WIA state allocations and
   what are some alternatives to these formulas?
                                                                                        2




                   Page 8                        GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                    Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Methodology


To conduct our analysis, we:

• Assessed the allocation formulas in WIA and in H.R. 1261
  according to several criteria: alignment with target populations, data
  reliability, and time lags in the data. (Our review focused on
  formulas for allocating funds to states, not formulas used by states
  to allocate funds to local areas.)

• Identified alternative factors and data sources through interviews
  with experts and literature review.

• Calculated how various combinations of alternative factors might
  have affected states’ average allocations over the last 5 program
  years (program years 1999 – 2003).


                                                                                        3




                    Page 9                        GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                    Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Summary of Findings



• A limited number of potential alternative factors are available that
  may be used to revise the current formulas to better reflect current
  programs because of the limited availability of reliable data sources.

• Alternative formulas that we have identified may result in additional
  funds to most states and fewer funds to several states with high
  levels of concentrated unemployment and would reduce funding
  volatility because they exclude concentrated unemployment factors.

• Changes to target populations proposed in H.R. 1261 have
  significant implications for WIA formulas, but proposed formulas
  would have marginal effects on the distribution of funds among
  states.

                                                                                        4




                    Page 10                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                    Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Background: Formulas Should Include Factors That
Satisfy Three Key Criteria

To effectively distribute WIA funds, formulas should include factors
that estimate states’ workloads as well as possible.

• Alignment: Factors should measure, as directly as possible, the
  relative numbers of those eligible for services (target populations).

• Timeliness: Because funds for any given program year are
  allocated before actual workloads are known, factors should be
  based on data that are as current as possible.

• Reliability: Factors should be based on data that reflect changes in
  states’ relative workloads and not on data that reflect changes
  resulting from problems with how the data are collected.
                                                                                        5




                    Page 11                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Background: Issues with Current Funding Formulas
That We Previously Identified

• Current WIA formulas reflect prior federal policies and do not directly
  measure the relative numbers of people eligible to receive services
  in each state, in part because the formula factors are poorly aligned
  with target populations.

• Time lags in the data used in the current formulas range from 9
  months to more than 10 years and do not always reflect the current
  size of the target populations.

• The Dislocated Worker Program formula in particular has led to
  volatility in yearly funding levels that is unrelated to changing labor
  market conditions.
 Note: U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for Youth,
 Adults, and Dislocated Workers, GAO-03-636 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2003).

                                                                                                                    6




                                Page 12                                    GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                     Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Background: Current Formula Factors Are Not
Clearly Aligned with Target Populations

Youth Program
• Unemployment factors do not isolate youth unemployment.
• Targets disadvantaged youth with barriers to employment, but
  factors do not measure the numbers of youth with these barriers.

Adult Program
• All adults are potentially eligible for services, but no factor captures
  relative numbers of adults in each state.
• No factor directly measures relative numbers of public assistance
  recipients, although they have priority for receiving certain services.

Dislocated Worker Program
• No factors directly measure any of the specified eligibility groups.
                                                                                          7




                     Page 13                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                     Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Background: Overview of Youth Program Target
Populations and Formula

     Target populations                                 Formula factors
Low-income youth with barriers to
employment (95 percent of youth                    Economically disadvantaged youth.
served must be low-income).
Non low-income youth with
barrier(s) to employment or to             Unemployment in Areas of
school completion (up to 5                 Substantial Unemployment/(ASUs)a
percent may be in this group).             (state-defined areas with
                                           populations of 10,000 or more and
Out-of-school youth (30 percent of unemployment over 6.5 percent).
funds must be spent on this
group).
                                           Excess unemploymenta (over 4.5
aUnemployment of individuals 16 and older.
                                           percent).
                                                                                                  8




                     Page 14                                GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                     Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Background: Overview of Adult Program Target
Populations and Formula

     Target populations                            Formula factors

                                          Unemployment in ASUs (state-defined
Adults 18 and older (for core             areas with populations of 10,000 or
services).                                more and unemployment over 6.5
                                          percent).

                                          Excess unemployment (over 4.5
                                          percent).
Public assistance recipients/
Low-income adults.                        Economically disadvantaged adults.
(Have priority for intensive and
training services where funds
are limited.)
                                                                                                9




                     Page 15                              GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                    Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Background: Overview of Dislocated Worker
Program Target Populations and Formula


      Target populations                              Formula factors

Terminated workers unlikely to
return to previous jobs.                          Total unemployment.

Workers affected by mass layoffs.                 Excess unemployment (over 4.5
                                                  percent).
Self-employed workers who lose
their jobs due to poor economy.
                                                  Long-term unemployment
                                                  (15 weeks or longer).
Displaced homemakers.

                                                                                             10




                    Page 16                              GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                    Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Background: Concentrated Unemployment Factors
Are Weighted Heavily, but Are Problematic

• A minimum of one-third of the funds for each program is distributed
  based on some measure of concentrated unemployment (ASU
  unemployment and excess unemployment).

• These factors are not clearly aligned with target populations (e.g., do
  not reflect youth unemployment in the Youth formula).

• These factors have a “threshold effect” that contributes to
  unwarranted funding volatility that does not necessarily reflect
  changes in states’ relative workloads.

• States may define ASUs, leading to inefficient use of resources:
    • States put different levels of effort into bringing as many areas
      as close to the 6.5 percent threshold as possible.
    • Each year Labor must determine if ASUs meet statutory criteria.
                                                                                       11




                    Page 17                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                    Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Background: “Economically Disadvantaged” Factors
Rely Solely on Data with Significant Time Lags

• Economically disadvantaged youth and adult factors make
  sense because these are major target populations.

• Nevertheless, data now used to measure poverty are based on the
  decennial census and have time lags of up to 13 years.

    • Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates
      (SAIPE) generates annual estimates of low-income youth and
      adults that have much shorter time lags.

• Public assistance recipients are target group for Adult program that
  is not directly measured by economically disadvantaged adults.

                                                                                      12




                    Page 18                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                  Appendix I: Briefing Slides




A Limited Number of Potential Factors Meet the Key
Criteria of Alignment, Timeliness, and Reliability

                                                                                     Dislocated Worker
         Youth Factors                              Adult Factors
                                                                                          Factors
Jobless out-of-school youtha Civilian labor force                                 Total unemployment

Low-income youtha                           Low-income adultsa                    Insured unemployment
(from SAIPE)                                (from SAIPE)
                                                                                  Workers affected by
Youth civilian labor force                  Adult public assistance               mass layoffs
                                            recipients
High school dropoutsa                                                             Permanent job losersa
                                            Total unemployment
Births to teens

Youth in foster care
aData for this factor are not available for Puerto Rico.

 Note: See appendix VII for more detailed discussion of the data sources and time lags for each potential factor.

                                                                                                                    13




                                  Page 19                                    GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                    Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Potential Youth Program Factors Would Measure
Target Populations More Directly

• Jobless out-of-school youth is a more direct measure of youth
  unemployment than total unemployment. (Census recommends a 3-
  year moving average to address reliability concerns for small states.)

• High school dropouts is a measurable target population under WIA
  that is not reflected in the current formula. (Census recommends a 3-
  year moving average to address reliability concerns for small states.)

• Births to teens would provide a proxy for the number of teen
  parents, another targeted group not factored into the current formula.

• Teens in foster care is another directly measurable WIA target
  population that is not reflected in the current formula.
                                                                                      14




                    Page 20                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                    Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Potential Adult Program Factors Better Reflect
Target Populations and Potential Workloads


• Civilian labor force could provide a measure of the base workload
  for core services.

• Public assistance recipients are to receive priority for more costly
  intensive and training services in some areas. A reasonable proxy
  for measuring this group would be the number of adults receiving
  Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance.

• Total unemployment would provide a measure of unemployed
  individuals, who are the majority of those actually served by the
  WIA Adult Program.

                                                                                       15




                    Page 21                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                   Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Potential Dislocated Worker Factors Measure
Dislocations More Directly

• Insured unemployment measures individuals who successfully
  applied for Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits in past year,
  remain unemployed, and have not exhausted benefits. The majority
  of those actually served under this WIA program are UI recipients.

• Workers affected by mass layoffs directly measures workers laid
  off as a result of major dislocations.

• Permanent job losers isolates those who lost nontemporary jobs. It
  excludes those who quit their jobs or are new to workforce and would
  be unlikely to qualify for program services. (Census recommends
  using a using 3-year moving average to address reliability concerns
  for small states.)
                                                                                     16




                   Page 22                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                    Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Analysis of Potential Effects of Changes to Current
Formulas: General Approach

• Developed several combinations of potential factors for each
  program, from single-factor formulas to more targeted, complex ones.
• Used judgment to assign relative weights to factors to reflect what is
  known about participation rates of, and costs of serving, different
  groups. (Weights may not reflect actual participation rates and costs.)
• Compared average potential allocations under alternative formulas to
  average actual allocations for program years 1999 - 2003.
    ¾Our calculations do not necessarily reflect what will occur in future
     years, since future data trends may differ from historical ones.
• Applied statutory constraints (hold harmless, small state minimums,
  stop gain) when calculating states’ allocations under alternative
  formulas and assessed the potential effect of removing them.
                                                                                       17




                    Page 23                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                          Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Youth Program: Examples of Possible Alternatives
to Current WIA Formulas

   Alternative Y1 (Least Targeted)
   100%      Low-income youth under 18 (SAIPE)

   Alternative Y2                                             Formula constraints
   66.7% Low-income youth under 18 (SAIPE)                 90% Hold harmless
   33.3% Jobless out-of-school youth,          16-21a     130% Stop gain
                                                          0.3% Small state minimum
   Alternative Y3 (Most Targeted)
   50%       Low-income youth under age 18 (SAIPE)
   10%       Births to teens, ages 14-19
   10%       Youth, ages 16-21, in foster care
   30%       High school dropouts,16-21a
aMoving 3-year average.

                                                                                             18




                          Page 24                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                  Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Youth Program: Potential Outcomes for States
under Alternative Formulas, Based on Historical
Data




Note: See app. III for details.
                                                                                                    19




                                  Page 25                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                    Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Adult Program: Examples of Possible Alternatives
to Current WIA Formulas

  Alternative A1 (Least targeted)
  100%   Civilian Labor Force

  Alternative A2
                                                  Formula constraints
  33.3% Civilian labor force
  33.3% Total unemployment                         90% Hold harmless
  33.3% Low-Income Adults                         130% Stop gain
                                                  0.3% Small state minimum
  Alternative A3 (Most targeted)
  25%    Civilian labor force
  25%    Total unemployment
  25%    Low-income adults
  25%    Public assistance recipients


                                                                                         20




                    Page 26                         GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                  Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Adult Program: Potential Outcomes for States under
Alternative Formulas, Based on Historical Data




Note: See app. III for details.
                                                                                                     21




                                  Page 27                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                     Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Dislocated Worker Program: Examples of
Alternatives to Current WIA Formulas

 Alternative DW1 (Least targeted)
 100% Total unemployment

 Alternative DW2
                                                   (As in the current law, additional
  33.3%    Total unemployment
                                                       formula constraints are not
  33.3%    Permanent job losers
                                                                included.)
  33.3%    Insured unemployment

 Alternative DW3 (Most targeted)
  25%   Total unemployment
  25%   Insured unemployment
  25%   Workers affected by mass layoffs
  25%   Permanent job losers

                                                                                              22




                     Page 28                             GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Dislocated Worker Program: Potential Outcomes for
States under Alternative Formulas, Based on
Historical Data




Note: See app. V for details.
                                                                                                   23




                                Page 29                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                   Appendix I: Briefing Slides




H.R. 1261 Proposes Significant Changes to WIA
Programs and Funding Formulas
Youth Program
• Focuses the Youth Program more on out-of-school youth and does
  not specify a percentage of participants who must be low-income.
• Youth Program funds in excess of the fiscal year 2003 amount
  would be subject to a new formula.
Comprehensive Program for Adults
• Combines WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and the
  Wagner-Peyser program into a Comprehensive Program for Adults.
• Each state would receive no less than under the current formulas for
  existing adult programs, but two new formulas would apply
  separately to 26 percent (“Wagner-Peyser” portion), and 74 percent
  (combined WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker portion) of adult funds.
                                                                                     24




                   Page 30                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                   Appendix I: Briefing Slides




H.R. 1261 Youth Program: Proposal Would Shift
Focus to Out-of-school Youth

• Increases proportion of funds to be spent on out-of-school youth to
  70 percent (current requirement is 30 percent).

    • Out-of-school youth must have a barrier to employment.

    • High school dropouts have priority.

• Up to 30 percent of funds may be spent on low-income, in-school
  youth (currently, 95 percent of youth served must be low-income).

• Youth age 16–24 are eligible (current law specifies ages 14-21).


                                                                                     25




                   Page 31                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                   Appendix I: Briefing Slides




H.R. 1261 Youth Program: Proposed Funding
Formula

• Allocates funds up to the fiscal year 2003 level ($976,945,172)
  according to the current Youth formula.

• Allocates funds in excess of $976,945,172 according to a new
  formula, based equally on:

    • Total unemployment (individuals ages 16 and older).
    • Disadvantaged (low-income) youth (ages 16 – 21).
    • Youth civilian labor force (ages 16 – 19).

• Retains current statutory constraints (90 percent hold harmless,
  etc.), with minor changes.

                                                                                     26




                   Page 32                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                               Appendix I: Briefing Slides




H.R. 1261 Youth Program: Overview of Target
Populations and Formula


  Target populations                                                Formula factors

                                                             Total unemployment.a
 Youth ages 16 - 24 with barriers
 to employment.
                                                             Disadvantaged (low-income) youth,
 High school dropouts                                        ages 16 – 21.
 have priority for receiving
 services.
                                                             Youth civilian labor force,
                                                             ages 16 –19.
aUnemployed individuals ages 16 and older.

                                                                                                            27




                               Page 33                                  GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                    Appendix I: Briefing Slides




H.R. 1261 Youth Program: Proposed Formula
Largely Does Not Address Current Formula Issues


• New formula is not aligned with proposed target populations:
    • No factor specifically measures out-of-school youth.
    • Unemployment factor does not isolate youth unemployment.

• Disadvantaged youth factor would still have significant time lags
  because it would be based on Census data.

• Requiring that the current formula be used up to the fiscal year
  2003 amount (“phase-in” provision) effectively prevents most
  program funds from being allocated based on the new formula.

                                                                                      28




                    Page 34                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                 Appendix I: Briefing Slides




H.R. 1261 Youth Program: Hypothetical State
Outcomes if Proposed New Formula Were to Be
Applied to All Funds, Based on Historical Data




Note: See app. XI for details.
                                                                                                    29




                                 Page 35                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                             Appendix I: Briefing Slides




H.R. 1261 Youth Program: Possible Alternative
Formulas under Proposed Program Structure

       Alternative HY1 (Least targeted)
       100%       Jobless out-of-school youth, 16-24a

       Alternative HY2                                          Formula constraints
       33.3%      High school dropouts, 16-24a
                                                             90% Hold harmless
       33.3%      Low-income youth, under age 18 (SAIPE)
                                                            130% Stop gain
       33.3%      Jobless out-of-school youth, 16-24a
                                                            0.3% Small state minimum

       Alternative HY3 (Most targeted)
       25%        High school dropouts
       25%        Low-income youth, under age 18 (SAIPE)
       25%        Youth in foster care
       25%        Jobless out-of-school youth, 16-24a
a
    Moving 3-year average.

                                                                                               30




                             Page 36                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                  Appendix I: Briefing Slides




H.R. 1261 Youth Program: Potential Outcomes for
States under Alternative Formulas, Based on
Historical Data




Note: See app. VII for details.
                                                                                                     31




                                  Page 37                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                     Appendix I: Briefing Slides




H.R. 1261 Comprehensive Adult Program:
Consolidates Three Adult Programs

• Combines WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs and the
  Wagner-Peyser program into a Comprehensive Program for Adults.

• Eliminates dislocated workers as a target population.

• Adds unemployed individuals as a priority group for intensive and
  training services.

• Retains universal eligibility for core services.

• Retains low-income individuals and public assistance recipients as
  priority groups for intensive and training services if funds are limited.

                                                                                        32




                     Page 38                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                   Appendix I: Briefing Slides




H.R. 1261 Comprehensive Adult Program:
Proposed Funding Formula

26% of funds
• Allocates funds up to fiscal year 2003 Wagner-Peyser level
  according to each state’s percentage of fiscal year 2003 Wagner-
  Peyser funds.
• Allocates funds in excess of the fiscal year 2003 Wagner-Peyser
  level based on civilian labor force.
74% of funds
• Allocated based on three factors:
       60% Total unemployment
       25% Excess unemployment (over 4.5% statewide)
       15% Disadvantaged (low-income) adults (ages 22-72)
• Retains current statutory constraints, with minor changes.
                                                                                     33




                   Page 39                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                   Appendix I: Briefing Slides




H.R. 1261 Comprehensive Adult Program: Additional
Proposed Requirements for State Allocations
Adjustments Based on “Allotment Differences”
• No state would receive a smaller proportion of funds than it would
  under current Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Wagner-Peyser
  formulas.
• Any state that would gain more funds under the new formulas than
  under the current formulas would be guaranteed to receive the new
  formula amount, but only up to 3 percent over what they would have
  received under the current formulas.
Sources of Funding
• Funds to ensure that no state would receive less than it would under
  the current formulas would come from the excess allotment
  differences (differences of more than 3 percent between what would
  be gained under the current formulas versus the new formula) of
  states, or from the Secretary’s reserve, which is used to fund
  National Emergency grants.
                                                                                      34




                   Page 40                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                    Appendix I: Briefing Slides




H.R. 1261 Comprehensive Adult Program: Overview
of Target Populations and Formula

     Target populations                           Formula factors
Adults 18 and older (for core                Civilian labor force.
services).

                                             Total unemployment.
Unemployed individuals.
(Have priority for intensive and             Excess unemployment (over 4.5
training services.)                          percent statewide).

Public assistance recipients/                Disadvantaged (low-income) adults.
low-income adults.
(Have priority for intensive and
training services.)
                                                                                             35




                    Page 41                              GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                   Appendix I: Briefing Slides




H.R. 1261 Comprehensive Adult Program: Formula
Would Be Better Aligned, but Some Issues Remain


• Generally, new formula factors are better aligned with newly
  defined target populations.

• However, the excess unemployment factor—which we previously
  identified as problematic—is retained.

• In addition, the proposed phase-in provision that ensures that no
  state would receive a smaller share of total funds than it would
  under the current formula restricts the new formula’s ability to
  redistribute funds.


                                                                                      36




                   Page 42                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                 Appendix I: Briefing Slides




H.R. 1261 Comprehensive Adult Program:
Hypothetical State Outcomes, without Adjustments
for Allotment Differences, Based on Historical Data




Note: See app. XI for details.
                                                                                                   37




                                 Page 43                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                      Appendix I: Briefing Slides




H.R. 1261 Comprehensive Adult Program:
Alternative Formulas

Alternative HC1 (Least targeted)
100% Total unemployment
                                                    Formula constraints
Alternative HC2                                      90% Hold harmless
 33.3% Total unemployment                           130% Stop gain
 33.3% Civilian labor force                         0.3% Small state minimum
 33.3% Low-income adults

Alternative HC3 (Most targeted)
 25% Total unemployment
 25% Civilian labor force
 25% Low-Income adults
 25% Public assistance recipients

                                                                                            38




                      Page 44                          GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                 Appendix I: Briefing Slides




H.R. 1261 Comprehensive Adult Program: Potential
Outcomes for States Under Alternative Formulas,
Based on Historical Data




Note: See app. IX for details.
                                                                                                    39




                                 Page 45                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                           Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix I: Possible Average Allocations Under
Alternative Youth Formulas, Program Years 1999 to
2003                                                   Y1                                    Y2                                    Y3
                       Actual average Average allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between
       State             allocation       under Y 1         actual and Y 1      under Y 2         actual and Y 2      under Y 3         actual and Y 3
                                 a              b                 (b-a)/a              c               (c-a)/a              d                 (d-a)/a
Alabama                      16,865,000      18,293,000                 8.5%       18,675,000               10.7%        17,731,000                 5.1%
Alaska                         3,612,000      3,164,000              -12.4%         3,164,000              -12.4%         3,164,000              -12.4%
Arizona                      17,611,000      20,427,000               16.0%        20,610,000               17.0%        21,029,000               19.4%
Arkansas                     10,221,000      11,386,000               11.4%        11,685,000               14.3%        10,646,000                 4.2%
California                  165,782,000     149,423,000               -9.9%       143,680,000              -13.3%       143,885,000              -13.2%
Colorado                       7,175,000     10,130,000               41.2%        10,975,000               53.0%        12,649,000               76.3%
Connecticut                    8,567,000      8,005,000               -6.6%         7,702,000              -10.1%         8,138,000                -5.0%
Delaware                       2,880,000      3,080,000                6.9%         3,080,000                6.9%         3,080,000                 6.9%
District of Columbia           4,189,000      3,185,000              -24.0%         3,185,000              -24.0%         3,185,000              -24.0%
Florida                      41,012,000      53,188,000               29.7%        51,108,000               24.6%        50,158,000               22.3%
Georgia                      20,391,000      30,853,000               51.3%        30,453,000               49.3%        29,346,000               43.9%
Hawaii                         5,473,000      3,833,000              -30.0%         3,993,000              -27.0%         3,793,000              -30.7%
Idaho                          4,193,000      4,205,000                0.3%         4,677,000               11.5%         4,528,000                 8.0%
Illinois                     46,862,000      37,720,000              -19.5%        38,841,000              -17.1%        42,585,000                -9.1%
Indiana                      13,214,000      14,566,000               10.2%        15,137,000               14.6%        15,569,000               17.8%
Iowa                           3,745,000      6,473,000               72.8%         6,456,000               72.4%         7,437,000               98.6%
Kansas                         4,727,000      7,045,000               49.0%         7,372,000               55.9%         8,007,000               69.4%
Kentucky                     16,263,000      15,752,000               -3.1%        15,902,000               -2.2%        15,421,000                -5.2%
Louisiana                    22,911,000      23,468,000                2.4%        24,496,000                6.9%        21,587,000                -5.8%
Maine                          3,715,000      3,311,000              -10.9%         3,319,000              -10.6%         3,455,000                -7.0%
Maryland                     13,637,000      11,972,000              -12.2%        12,817,000               -6.0%        14,270,000                 4.6%
Massachusetts                14,415,000      15,793,000                9.6%        15,931,000               10.5%        16,299,000                13.1%
 Michigan                     33,003,000     31,264,000                -5.3%       32,083,000                -2.8%       33,367,000                 1.1%
 Minnesota                     9,437,000     10,537,000               11.7%        10,306,000                 9.2%       12,890,000                36.6%
 Mississippi                  14,817,000     14,524,000                -2.0%       14,490,000                -2.2%       12,870,000               -13.1%
 Missouri                     15,324,000     17,493,000               14.2%        17,216,000               12.3%        18,932,000                23.5%


                                                                                                                                                   40




                                           Page 46                                                GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                     Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix I: Possible Average Allocations Under
Alternative Youth Formulas, Program Years 1999 to
2003 (continued)                                 Y1                                    Y2                                    Y3
                 Actual average Average allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between
      State        allocation      under Y1           actual and Y1       under Y2          actual and Y2       under Y 3         actual and Y3
                           a              b              (b-a)/a                c                 (c-a)/a             d                 (d-a)/a
Montana                 3,818,000       3,400,000              -11.0%         3,451,000                -9.6%        3,372,000              -11.7%
Nebraska                2,880,000       3,963,000               37.6%         4,031,000               40.0%         5,137,000               78.4%
Nevada                  4,591,000       4,931,000                 7.4%        5,412,000               17.9%         5,808,000               26.5%
New Hampshire           2,880,000       3,080,000                 6.9%        3,080,000                 6.9%        3,080,000                 6.9%
New Jersey             26,366,000     22,471,000               -14.8%        22,596,000              -14.3%        22,471,000              -14.8%
New Mexico              9,777,000       9,976,000                 2.0%        9,508,000                -2.8%        8,757,000              -10.4%
New York               79,461,000     75,734,000                 -4.7%       73,621,000                -7.3%       69,187,000              -12.9%
North Carolina         19,504,000     24,799,000                 27.1%       24,425,000               25.2%        24,801,000               27.2%
North Dakota            2,880,000       3,080,000                 6.9%        3,080,000                 6.9%        3,080,000                 6.9%
Ohio                   43,311,000     34,484,000               -20.4%        35,309,000              -18.5%        35,835,000              -17.3%
Oklahoma                9,137,000     13,625,000                 49.1%       13,031,000               42.6%        13,179,000               44.2%
Oregon                 14,093,000     10,331,000               -26.7%        10,839,000              -23.1%        11,093,000              -21.3%
Pennsylvania           36,563,000     33,450,000                 -8.5%       34,556,000                -5.5%       34,374,000                -6.0%
Rhode Island            2,949,000       3,092,000                 4.9%        3,080,000                 4.4%        3,206,000                 8.7%
South Carolina         14,002,000     14,914,000                  6.5%       15,076,000                 7.7%       14,455,000                 3.2%
South Dakota            2,880,000       3,080,000                 6.9%        3,080,000                 6.9%        3,080,000                 6.9%
Tennessee              19,585,000     18,607,000                 -5.0%       19,500,000                -0.4%       21,189,000                 8.2%
Texas                  89,107,000     94,595,000                  6.2%       93,825,000                 5.3%       88,745,000                -0.4%
Utah                    3,508,000       5,627,000                60.4%        6,102,000               73.9%         6,186,000               76.3%
Vermont                 2,880,000       3,080,000                 6.9%        3,080,000                 6.9%        3,080,000                 6.9%
Virginia               15,122,000     17,673,000                 16.9%       17,900,000               18.4%        17,483,000               15.6%
Washington             24,483,000     17,183,000               -29.8%        18,190,000               -25.7%       17,784,000               -27.4%
West Virginia          10,183,000       7,969,000               -21.7%        8,286,000               -18.6%        7,922,000               -22.2%
Wisconsin              10,832,000      12,399,000                14.5%       12,222,000                12.8%       13,312,000                22.9%
Wyoming                  2,880,000      3,080,000                 6.9%        3,080,000                 6.9%        3,080,000                 6.9%

Source: GAO analysis.
                                                                                                                                             41




                                     Page 47                                                 GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                      Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix II: Possible Largest and Smallest Year-to-
Year Increases under Alternative Youth Formulas,
Program Years 1999 to 2003
                        Actual allocations                 Alternative Y   1              Alternative Y   2              Alternative Y   3

Overall volatility              0.186%                          0.186%                         0.177%                         0.177%
                       Largest %       Smallest %      Largest %      Smallest %      Largest %      Smallest %      Largest %      Smallest %
           State        increase        increase        increase       increase        increase       increase        increase       increase
Alabama                      33.4%           -19.4%          13.3%            -5.2%         14.4%            -9.8%         12.4%            -8.7%
Alaska                       26.4%           -20.6%            8.6%         -11.8%            8.6%         -11.8%            8.6%         -11.8%
Arizona                      17.7%           -10.0%          13.0%          -20.5%          16.2%          -17.5%          14.3%          -16.0%
Arkansas                       5.3%          -16.2%          14.3%            -9.1%         14.0%          -11.5%          13.2%          -11.5%
California                     5.2%          -17.3%          10.5%          -12.7%          11.5%          -12.8%          10.1%          -12.8%
Colorado                     14.7%           -10.0%          20.7%          -17.6%          30.0%          -13.2%          30.0%          -13.3%
Connecticut                  23.5%           -20.6%          12.7%          -20.6%            2.7%         -19.9%          14.4%          -18.3%
Delaware                     35.6%           -20.6%          20.0%          -11.8%          20.0%          -11.8%          20.0%          -11.8%
District of Columbia         20.0%           -20.6%            6.8%         -11.8%            6.8%         -11.8%            6.8%         -11.8%
Florida                        9.5%            -5.5%         23.6%          -17.8%          17.4%          -16.4%          13.4%          -15.5%
Georgia                        9.4%          -12.8%          30.0%          -16.1%          30.0%          -16.8%          30.0%          -15.6%
Hawaii                       11.5%           -20.6%           -0.8%         -11.7%            0.8%         -10.3%           -0.8%         -17.3%
Idaho                        12.9%           -20.6%          23.4%            -7.7%         21.0%          -10.0%          15.2%            -6.6%
Illinois                     21.3%           -16.9%            8.9%         -10.0%            9.7%         -10.0%          10.3%            -9.6%
Indiana                      23.5%           -10.0%          29.5%          -20.1%          24.2%          -17.6%          19.4%          -13.2%
Iowa                         23.5%           -10.0%          30.0%          -20.6%          30.0%          -20.6%          30.7%          -19.9%
Kansas                       35.0%           -10.5%          30.0%            -4.4%         30.0%            -5.2%         30.0%          -10.2%
Kentucky                     10.4%             -8.1%           3.7%         -10.0%            3.9%         -10.0%            4.5%         -10.2%
Louisiana                    21.3%           -20.6%            5.1%           -0.8%           6.7%           -7.0%           4.7%           -7.5%
Maine                          7.8%          -20.6%            2.3%         -10.0%            3.2%         -10.0%            3.7%         -10.0%
Maryland                     23.9%           -15.1%          18.3%          -20.5%          16.4%          -15.9%          17.1%          -11.8%
Massachusetts                23.5%           -20.6%          32.6%          -10.0%          30.4%          -10.0%          23.6%          -10.0%
Michigan                     30.0%             -9.6%           9.1%         -18.3%          10.9%          -15.3%          10.4%          -17.3%
Minnesota                    23.5%           -20.6%          29.3%          -20.6%          25.2%          -20.6%          24.0%          -18.4%
Mississippi                  38.0%           -20.6%          14.1%            -1.7%         11.7%            -1.3%           4.0%           -3.0%
Missouri                       6.8%          -10.0%          11.2%            -5.1%           8.8%           -6.1%         22.4%            -5.7%


                                                                                                                                                42




                                      Page 48                                                 GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                      Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix II: Possible Largest and Smallest Year-to-
Year Increases under Alternative Youth Formulas,
Program Years 1999 to 2003 (continued)
                        Actual allocations                 Alternative Y 1                Alternative Y   2              Alternative Y   3


Overall volatility              0.186%                          0.186%                         0.177%                         0.177%

                       Largest %       Smallest %      Largest %      Smallest %      Largest %      Smallest %      Largest %      Smallest %
          State         increase        increase        increase       increase        increase       increase        increase       increase
Montana                      16.6%           -20.6%          12.7%          -11.4%          12.4%          -14.1%          13.6%          -14.9%
Nebraska                     35.6%           -20.6%          30.0%          -13.2%          30.0%          -11.4%          43.2%            -9.7%
Nevada                       23.5%           -10.0%          36.9%          -10.0%          31.0%            -4.1%         22.3%            -5.3%
New Hampshire                35.6%           -20.6%          14.5%          -11.8%          14.5%          -11.8%          14.5%          -11.8%
New Jersey                   23.5%           -20.6%           -0.8%         -20.6%           -0.8%         -17.7%           -0.8%         -20.6%
New Mexico                   10.6%           -20.6%            5.5%           -6.4%           4.7%         -10.0%            3.7%         -10.0%
New York                     11.4%           -15.5%          10.7%          -10.0%            8.0%         -11.1%            9.6%         -10.3%
North Carolina               33.6%             -5.1%         30.0%          -13.9%          30.0%          -11.6%          30.0%          -10.9%
North Dakota                 35.6%           -20.6%          20.0%          -11.8%          20.0%          -11.8%          20.0%          -11.8%
Ohio                         17.9%           -14.5%          10.1%          -10.0%            7.3%         -10.0%            7.6%         -10.0%
Oklahoma                     29.9%           -17.9%          30.0%          -17.0%          30.0%          -13.1%          30.0%          -15.4%
Oregon                       18.7%             -7.2%         11.5%          -10.0%            7.4%         -10.0%            7.5%         -11.6%
Pennsylvania                 11.2%           -16.0%          11.8%          -17.3%          11.1%          -13.9%          12.2%          -12.2%
Rhode Island                 33.8%           -20.6%          10.2%          -10.0%          10.2%          -11.8%            7.2%           -4.1%
South Carolina               23.5%           -10.0%          14.6%          -12.2%          10.7%          -11.2%          10.1%          -11.6%
South Dakota                 35.6%           -20.6%          20.0%          -11.8%          20.0%          -11.8%          20.0%          -11.8%
Tennessee                      8.3%          -13.2%            6.6%         -10.0%            5.2%           -2.8%           4.9%           -6.2%
Texas                        11.1%             -9.1%           6.9%           -4.7%           7.7%           -7.8%           8.0%           -7.3%
Utah                         20.3%             -9.2%         30.0%          -20.6%          42.7%          -19.2%          43.2%          -16.9%
Vermont                      35.6%           -20.6%          20.0%          -11.8%          20.0%          -11.8%          20.0%          -11.8%
Virginia                     23.5%           -13.7%          18.3%          -14.9%          15.3%            -9.0%         14.2%            -9.8%
Washington                   32.3%           -10.0%           -0.8%         -10.0%            2.5%         -10.0%            0.5%         -10.0%
West Virginia                  8.3%          -20.6%           -0.8%         -10.0%            4.7%         -10.0%           -0.8%         -11.3%
Wisconsin                    33.4%             -5.9%         34.2%          -20.6%          25.6%          -17.5%          30.0%          -14.4%
Wyoming                      35.6%           -20.6%          20.0%          -11.8%          20.0%          -11.8%          20.0%          -11.8%

Source: GAO analysis
                                                                                                                                                43




                                      Page 49                                                 GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                         Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix III: Possible Average Allocations under
Alternative Adult Formulas, Program Years 1999 to
2003
                                                     A1                                    A2                                    A3

                     Actual average Average allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between
       State           allocation       under A 1         actual and A 1      under A 2         actual and A 2      under A 3         actual and A 3
                            a                  b                 (b-a)/a             c                 (c-a)/a             d                 (d-a)/a
Alabama                  15,671,000       13,226,000                -15.6%       15,128,000                -3.5%      12,906,000                -17.6%
Alaska                    3,382,000         2,892,000               -14.5%        2,892,000               -14.5%        2,892,000               -14.5%
Arizona                  16,047,000       15,030,000                 -6.3%       15,662,000                -2.4%      14,646,000                 -8.7%
Arkansas                  9,502,000         7,847,000               -17.4%        9,040,000                -4.9%        7,841,000               -17.5%
California             149,883,000       115,708,000                -22.8%      121,758,000               -18.8%     137,457,000                 -8.3%
Colorado                  6,031,000       12,860,000               113.2%        11,433,000                89.6%        9,982,000                65.5%
Connecticut               6,762,000       10,606,000                 56.8%        8,457,000                25.1%        9,252,000                36.8%
Delaware                  2,346,000        2,815,000                 20.0%        2,815,000                20.0%        2,815,000                20.0%
District of Columbia      3,882,000        2,932,000                -24.5%        2,932,000               -24.5%        3,373,000               -13.1%
Florida                  39,386,000       46,672,000                 18.5%       48,770,000                23.8%      42,801,000                  8.7%
Georgia                  18,653,000       25,333,000                 35.8%       25,107,000                34.6%      23,633,000                 26.7%
Hawaii                    5,207,000        3,876,000                -25.6%        3,840,000               -26.3%        4,334,000               -16.8%
Idaho                     3,846,000         4,089,000                 6.3%        4,175,000                 8.6%        3,264,000               -15.1%
Illinois                 43,201,000       38,249,000                -11.5%       37,920,000               -12.2%      38,939,000                 -9.9%
Indiana                  10,980,000       18,695,000                 70.3%       16,226,000                47.8%      15,719,000                 43.2%
Iowa                      3,272,000         8,030,000              145.4%         7,031,000              114.9%         7,284,000              122.6%
Kansas                    4,454,000         7,753,000                74.1%        7,205,000                61.8%        6,749,000                51.5%
Kentucky                 15,187,000       13,116,000                -13.6%       13,986,000                -7.9%      13,921,000                 -8.3%
Louisiana                21,177,000       15,363,000                -27.5%       16,654,000               -21.4%      15,872,000                -25.1%
Maine                     3,313,000        4,157,000                 25.5%        3,901,000                17.7%        4,080,000                23.2%
Maryland                 12,908,000       17,144,000                 32.8%       15,069,000                16.7%      14,297,000                 10.8%
Massachusetts            11,384,000       20,393,000                 79.1%       17,383,000                52.7%      17,356,000                 52.5%
Michigan                 29,317,000       31,255,000                  6.6%       29,744,000                 1.5%      30,755,000                  4.9%
Minnesota                 8,536,000       16,102,000                 88.6%       13,174,000                54.3%      14,094,000                 65.1%
Mississippi              12,984,000        8,665,000                -33.3%       10,233,000               -21.2%        9,183,000               -29.3%
Missouri                 14,203,000       18,007,000                 26.8%       16,826,000                18.5%      17,218,000                 21.2%


                                                                                                                                                   44




                                         Page 50                                                 GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                      Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix III: Possible Average Allocations under
Alternative Adult Formulas, Program Years 1999 to
2003 (continued)
                                                 A1                                     A2                                    A3

                 Actual average Average allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between
      State        allocation       under A 1         actual and A 1      under A 2         actual and A2       under A 3         actual and A 3
                        a              b                  (b-a)/a            c                  (c-a)/a            d                  (d-a)/a
Montana               3,747,000         2,900,000               -22.6%        3,245,000               -13.4%        3,009,000               -19.7%
Nebraska              2,346,000         4,760,000               102.9%        4,233,000                 80.4%       4,125,000                 75.8%
Nevada                4,292,000         6,094,000                42.0%        5,592,000                 30.3%       4,852,000                 13.1%
New Hampshire         2,346,000         4,029,000                71.8%        3,130,000                 33.4%       2,948,000                 25.7%
New Jersey           21,899,000       26,069,000                 19.0%       24,281,000                 10.9%     23,460,000                   7.1%
New Mexico            8,966,000         7,247,000               -19.2%        7,401,000               -17.5%        7,993,000               -10.9%
New York             77,472,000       60,598,000                -21.8%       64,860,000               -16.3%      74,834,000                  -3.4%
North Carolina       18,436,000       23,581,000                 27.9%       23,528,000                 27.6%     21,780,000                  18.1%
North Dakota          2,346,000         2,815,000                20.0%        2,815,000                 20.0%       2,815,000                 20.0%
Ohio                 40,553,000       35,586,000                -12.2%       34,681,000               -14.5%      35,024,000                -13.6%
Oklahoma              8,602,000       10,142,000                 17.9%       10,563,000                 22.8%       9,533,000                 10.8%
Oregon               13,357,000       10,985,000                -17.8%       11,885,000               -11.0%      10,441,000                -21.8%
Pennsylvania         34,263,000       36,576,000                   6.8%      36,795,000                  7.4%     37,030,000                   8.1%
Rhode Island          2,445,000         3,108,000                27.1%        3,054,000                 24.9%       3,885,000                 58.9%
South Carolina       12,488,000       12,342,000                  -1.2%      12,915,000                  3.4%     11,662,000                  -6.6%
South Dakota          2,346,000         2,815,000                20.0%        2,815,000                 20.0%       2,815,000                 20.0%
Tennessee            18,218,000       17,444,000                  -4.3%      17,933,000                 -1.6%     18,334,000                   0.6%
Texas                79,979,000       65,167,000                -18.5%       70,597,000               -11.7%      65,811,000                -17.7%
Utah                  2,803,000         5,372,000                91.6%        5,074,000                 81.0%       4,745,000                 69.3%
Vermont               2,346,000         2,815,000                20.0%        2,815,000                 20.0%       2,815,000                 20.0%
Virginia             12,903,000       22,129,000                 71.5%       18,989,000                 47.2%     17,024,000                  31.9%
Washington           22,706,000       18,873,000                -16.9%       19,187,000               -15.5%      20,245,000                -10.8%
West Virginia         9,640,000         7,112,000               -26.2%        7,271,000               -24.6%        7,326,000               -24.0%
Wisconsin            10,063,000       16,231,000                 61.3%       14,591,000                 45.0%     12,435,000                  23.6%
Wyoming               2,346,000         2,815,000                20.0%        2,815,000                 20.0%       2,815,000                 20.0%

Source: GAO analysis.
                                                                                                                                               45




                                      Page 51                                                 GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                      Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix IV: Possible Largest and Smallest Year-to-
Year Increases under Alternative Adult Formulas,
Program Years 1999 to 2003
                        Actual allocations                 Alternative A   1              Alternative A   2              Alternative A   3




 Overall volatility             0.176%                          0.147%                         0.128%                         0.127%
                       Largest %       Smallest %      Largest %      Smallest %      Largest %      Smallest %      Largest %      Smallest %
            State       increase        increase        increase       increase        increase       increase        increase       increase
Alabama                      25.3%           -14.9%            1.6%         -10.0%            3.4%         -10.5%            3.5%         -10.0%
Alaska                       20.7%           -14.9%            0.0%         -10.5%            0.0%         -10.5%            0.0%         -10.5%
Arizona                      11.2%           -10.0%            3.4%         -10.0%            7.3%         -10.0%            5.4%         -10.0%
Arkansas                       4.9%          -12.3%            1.1%         -10.0%            1.3%           -9.2%           0.5%         -10.0%
California                     4.9%          -14.9%           -2.0%         -10.5%           -1.1%         -10.5%            3.3%           -9.6%
Colorado                     23.0%           -10.0%          30.0%            -1.7%         30.0%            -2.7%         30.0%            -5.0%
Connecticut                 -10.0%           -14.9%          14.8%            -3.8%           1.3%           -5.0%           6.8%           -9.4%
Delaware                       0.0%            -5.4%         20.0%            -5.4%         20.0%            -5.4%         20.0%            -5.4%
District of Columbia         19.7%           -14.9%            0.0%         -10.5%            0.0%         -10.5%            5.0%         -10.0%
Florida                      18.7%             -5.6%         11.3%            -1.7%         20.1%            -2.1%         14.5%            -6.7%
Georgia                        2.5%          -10.0%          24.4%            -4.3%         25.6%            -3.6%         25.5%            -4.1%
Hawaii                       10.7%           -14.9%            0.3%         -10.5%           -5.6%         -14.9%            6.5%         -12.2%
Idaho                        12.2%           -14.9%          11.1%            -5.0%         13.4%            -8.6%           2.8%           -8.6%
Illinois                     15.9%           -14.9%          11.1%          -10.0%            9.1%         -10.0%            8.2%         -13.9%
Indiana                      23.0%           -10.5%          30.0%            -4.1%         19.9%            -2.9%           9.7%            0.9%
Iowa                         10.8%           -10.5%          30.0%            -1.0%         30.0%            -1.4%         30.0%             1.7%
Kansas                       30.0%           -10.0%          30.0%            -8.1%         30.0%            -7.1%         30.0%            -3.5%
Kentucky                       4.7%            -7.9%          -0.1%         -10.5%            1.9%         -10.3%            4.9%         -10.5%
Louisiana                    19.1%           -14.9%         -10.0%          -14.9%            3.8%         -11.6%           -4.0%         -11.4%
Maine                          8.1%          -14.9%            7.2%           -6.6%           9.8%           -5.2%         10.3%            -4.7%
Maryland                     23.2%           -11.0%          30.0%            -5.5%         29.4%          -10.9%          25.6%            -8.5%
Massachusetts                 -9.5%          -10.5%          30.0%            -1.9%         10.8%            -2.7%         11.4%            -1.6%
Michigan                     30.0%           -10.0%          10.7%          -10.4%          11.0%          -11.8%          10.9%            -9.4%
Minnesota                    26.8%           -14.9%          30.0%            -2.8%         28.2%            -6.6%         29.9%            -3.0%
Mississippi                  30.0%           -14.9%           -0.8%         -10.5%            3.6%         -10.0%           -0.2%         -10.0%
Missouri                     15.9%           -10.5%          22.4%            -5.6%         19.2%            -5.8%         18.1%            -5.0%


                                                                                                                                               46




                                      Page 52                                                 GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                    Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix IV: Possible Largest and Smallest Year-to-
Year Increases under Alternative Adult Formulas,
Program Years 1999 to 2003 (continued)
                        Actual allocations               Alternative A   1              Alternative A   2              Alternative A 3


 Overall volatility            0.176%                         0.147%                         0.128%                         0.127%
                      Largest %      Smallest %      Largest %      Smallest %      Largest %      Smallest %      Largest %      Smallest %
          State        increase       increase        increase       increase        increase       increase        increase       increase
Montana                     15.3%          -14.9%            2.0%         -10.0%            2.9%         -14.9%            2.7%         -10.3%
Nebraska                     0.0%            -5.4%         30.0%            -5.0%         30.0%            -7.2%         30.0%            -5.4%
Nevada                      23.0%          -10.5%          28.5%             3.2%         17.0%            -1.4%           5.9%            1.0%
New Hampshire                0.0%            -6.3%         30.0%            -5.2%         17.3%             0.1%         12.4%            -0.5%
New Jersey                   8.6%          -10.5%            1.0%         -10.0%           -1.5%         -10.0%           -2.6%         -10.0%
New Mexico                  10.2%          -14.9%         -10.0%          -14.9%           -5.5%         -12.4%            8.3%         -14.9%
New York                    10.8%          -10.7%           -2.0%         -10.5%           -2.5%         -10.0%            9.7%         -10.0%
North Carolina              30.0%            -5.3%         30.0%            -2.2%         30.0%             1.5%         30.0%             1.0%
North Dakota                 0.0%            -5.4%         20.0%            -5.4%         20.0%            -5.4%         20.0%            -5.4%
Ohio                        11.7%          -10.3%            3.2%         -10.0%            2.4%         -10.0%            0.1%           -7.5%
Oklahoma                    29.3%          -12.6%          25.7%            -4.0%         30.0%            -6.0%         27.4%            -6.9%
Oregon                      23.0%          -10.0%            3.3%         -10.0%            3.3%           -3.4%           1.6%         -10.0%
Pennsylvania                17.4%          -12.0%            7.5%         -10.0%            2.4%           -6.0%           2.4%           -6.5%
Rhode Island                 0.0%          -10.5%            8.8%           -7.1%           2.7%           -3.4%         14.0%            -1.6%
South Carolina              19.2%          -10.5%            1.4%         -10.0%            3.7%         -10.0%            0.2%         -10.5%
South Dakota                 0.0%            -5.4%         20.0%            -5.4%         20.0%            -5.4%         20.0%            -5.4%
Tennessee                   17.0%          -10.5%            1.7%         -10.0%            1.8%           -6.8%           7.1%         -10.0%
Texas                        5.1%          -10.0%            2.8%         -10.5%            2.2%         -10.0%            2.5%         -10.0%
Utah                        23.0%          -10.0%          30.0%            -2.1%         30.0%             3.7%         30.0%             1.6%
Vermont                      0.0%            -5.4%         20.0%            -5.4%         20.0%            -5.4%         20.0%            -5.4%
Virginia                    18.5%          -10.5%          30.0%            -5.6%         19.0%            -4.8%           6.9%           -5.0%
Washington                  29.7%          -10.0%            1.0%         -10.0%            5.7%         -10.0%          12.6%          -10.0%
West Virginia                5.8%          -14.9%         -10.0%          -14.9%           -5.4%         -12.0%           -2.1%         -10.5%
Wisconsin                   30.0%            -6.2%         30.0%            -6.6%         30.0%            -3.9%         30.0%            -2.7%
Wyoming                      0.0%            -5.4%         20.0%            -5.4%         20.0%            -5.4%         20.0%            -5.4%

Source: GAO analysis.
                                                                                                                                                  47




                                    Page 53                                                  GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                          Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix V: Possible Average Allocations under
Alternative Dislocated Worker Formulas, Program
Years 1999 to 2003
                                                       DW1                                  DW2                                  DW3

                       Actual average Average allocation Difference Between Average allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between
       State             allocation      under DW1        actual and DW1       under DW 2       actual and DW 2      under DW 3       actual and DW3
                                 a               b                (b-a)/a              c                (c-a)/a              d                (d-a)/a
Alabama                      16,270,000     17,780,000                 9.3%       16,955,000                 4.2%       15,846,000                -2.6%
Alaska                        7,478,000       3,512,000              -53.0%         3,793,000              -49.3%         4,281,000              -42.7%
Arizona                      13,146,000     18,482,000                40.6%       14,617,000                11.2%       15,852,000                20.6%
Arkansas                      9,264,000     10,559,000                14.0%       11,008,000                18.8%         9,445,000                2.0%
California                  244,855,000    164,569,000               -32.8%      168,908,000               -31.0%      197,105,000               -19.5%
Colorado                      8,763,000     13,585,000                55.0%       11,690,000                33.4%       11,755,000                34.1%
Connecticut                   7,597,000       9,479,000               24.8%       13,483,000                77.5%       12,500,000                64.5%
Delaware                      1,952,000       2,542,000               30.2%         2,638,000               35.1%         2,011,000                3.0%
District of Columbia          8,030,000       3,226,000              -59.8%         2,975,000              -62.9%         2,475,000              -69.2%
Florida                      42,924,000     57,649,000                34.3%       54,047,000                25.9%       54,668,000                27.4%
Georgia                      19,845,000     28,625,000                44.2%       25,413,000                28.1%       22,381,000                12.8%
Hawaii                        7,274,000       5,365,000              -26.2%         5,174,000              -28.9%         4,852,000              -33.3%
Idaho                         5,215,000       5,766,000               10.6%         5,409,000                3.7%         5,321,000                2.0%
Illinois                     54,010,000     53,890,000                -0.2%       55,595,000                 2.9%       66,727,000                23.5%
Indiana                      12,441,000     18,972,000                52.5%       17,839,000                43.4%       18,558,000                49.2%
Iowa                          4,923,000       7,752,000               57.5%         8,148,000               65.5%         7,732,000               57.0%
Kansas                        5,733,000       9,324,000               62.7%         8,674,000               51.3%         7,940,000               38.5%
Kentucky                     11,967,000     15,626,000                30.6%       13,999,000                17.0%       12,715,000                 6.2%
Louisiana                    27,911,000     19,356,000               -30.7%       17,132,000               -38.6%       15,227,000               -45.4%
Maine                         3,390,000       4,608,000               35.9%         4,444,000               31.1%         5,226,000               54.2%
Maryland                     17,000,000     19,958,000                17.4%       19,075,000                12.2%       15,504,000                -8.8%
Massachusetts                14,172,000     19,716,000                39.1%       27,160,000                91.7%       27,643,000                95.1%
Michigan                     28,471,000     38,681,000                35.9%       39,167,000                37.6%       42,195,000                48.2%
Minnesota                     9,856,000     14,820,000                50.4%       14,583,000                48.0%       16,406,000                66.5%
Mississippi                  18,601,000     12,303,000               -33.9%       11,186,000               -39.9%       10,063,000               -45.9%
Missouri                     14,959,000     19,343,000                29.3%       20,022,000                33.8%       19,343,000                29.3%


                                                                                                                                                  48




                                          Page 54                                                 GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                     Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix V: Possible Average Allocations under
Alternative Dislocated Worker Formulas, Program
Years 1999 to 2003 (continued)
                                                 DW1                                   DW2                                  DW 3

                 Actual average Average allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between
      State        allocation      under DW1        actual and DW1       under DW2        actual and DW 2      under DW 3       actual and DW3
                           a               b                (b-a)/a              c                (c-a)/a              d                (d-a)/a
Montana                 4,750,000       4,131,000              -13.0%         3,474,000              -26.9%        3,094,000               -34.9%
Nebraska                2,609,000       4,496,000               72.3%         3,955,000               51.6%        3,058,000                17.2%
Nevada                  6,069,000       7,696,000               26.8%         8,680,000               43.0%        8,595,000                41.6%
New Hampshire           2,094,000       3,561,000               70.0%         3,179,000               51.8%        2,996,000                43.1%
New Jersey             30,850,000     33,755,000                 9.4%       42,694,000                38.4%       39,329,000                27.5%
New Mexico             16,411,000       8,813,000              -46.3%         6,679,000              -59.3%        6,161,000               -62.5%
New York              108,480,000     81,638,000               -24.7%       85,126,000               -21.5%       73,729,000               -32.0%
North Carolina         23,795,000     28,522,000                19.9%       29,133,000                22.4%       27,656,000                16.2%
North Dakota            1,128,000       1,622,000               43.8%         1,406,000               24.6%        1,250,000                10.7%
Ohio                   33,359,000     45,503,000                36.4%       41,808,000                25.3%       45,152,000                35.4%
Oklahoma                6,872,000     10,572,000                53.8%         9,323,000               35.7%        8,246,000                20.0%
Oregon                 26,475,000     17,899,000               -32.4%       19,184,000               -27.5%       17,798,000               -32.8%
Pennsylvania           40,018,000     48,505,000                21.2%       55,287,000                38.2%       52,218,000                30.5%
Rhode Island            2,985,000       3,839,000               28.6%         4,676,000               56.6%        4,070,000                36.3%
South Carolina         11,903,000     14,800,000                24.3%       14,468,000                21.6%       11,915,000                  0.1%
South Dakota            1,202,000       1,888,000               57.1%         1,442,000               19.9%        1,110,000                 -7.7%
Tennessee              14,553,000     21,064,000                44.7%       21,356,000                46.7%       18,054,000                24.1%
Texas                  72,935,000     88,258,000                21.0%       78,436,000                 7.5%       75,039,000                  2.9%
Utah                    4,561,000       7,095,000               55.6%         6,191,000               35.7%        6,293,000                38.0%
Vermont                 1,292,000       1,906,000               47.6%         1,957,000               51.5%        1,679,000                30.0%
Virginia               12,760,000     19,545,000                53.2%       16,889,000                32.4%       16,614,000                30.2%
Washington             35,425,000     28,494,000               -19.6%       30,121,000               -15.0%       28,306,000               -20.1%
West Virginia          17,409,000       8,508,000              -51.1%         7,861,000              -54.8%        6,311,000               -63.8%
Wisconsin              13,810,000     19,636,000                42.2%       21,174,000                53.3%       25,582,000                85.2%
Wyoming                 1,406,000       1,964,000               39.7%         1,567,000               11.4%        1,175,000               -16.4%

Source: GAO analysis.
                                                                                                                                             49




                                     Page 55                                                 GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                     Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix VI: Possible Largest and Smallest Year-to-
Year Increases under Alternative Dislocated Worker
Formulas, Program Years 1999 to 2003
                        Actual allocations             Alternative DW   1            Alternative DW 2              Alternative DW   3




Overall volatility             0.382%                        0.271%                         0.243%                       0.292%
                       Largest %     Smallest %      Largest %     Smallest %      Largest %     Smallest %      Largest %     Smallest %
             State      increase      Increase        increase      increase        increase      increase        increase      increase
Alabama                      52.0%         -13.8%          42.9%           -9.9%         42.4%           -8.6%         28.5%           -4.3%
Alaska                       69.6%         -63.3%           9.6%         -38.8%          17.0%         -32.9%          49.1%         -50.4%
Arizona                      53.3%         -30.4%          26.4%           -5.3%         17.4%           -8.9%         31.2%         -17.4%
Arkansas                     16.5%         -42.6%          12.7%         -11.3%          16.0%         -11.2%           9.0%         -11.8%
California                   17.8%         -20.1%          11.5%         -29.3%          12.1%         -27.2%          18.1%         -17.6%
Colorado                     72.1%         -10.6%          71.5%         -11.2%          47.4%           -5.8%         46.3%           -5.5%
Connecticut                  22.1%         -27.4%          15.3%         -17.6%           7.2%         -16.1%          14.5%         -20.0%
Delaware                     31.3%         -36.3%          21.2%         -17.8%          29.9%           -7.9%          5.1%           -2.6%
District of Columbia         62.5%         -61.2%           0.4%         -34.6%           5.7%         -42.6%          15.2%         -57.0%
Florida                      41.6%         -13.3%          28.5%           -5.0%         19.1%           -6.3%         24.3%         -12.2%
Georgia                      26.8%           -9.0%         63.9%           -5.0%         30.2%            1.2%         23.6%           -0.4%
Hawaii                       40.4%         -49.9%          16.9%         -19.2%           7.7%         -18.8%           6.2%         -24.5%
Idaho                        63.7%         -35.4%          29.2%         -12.6%          19.1%           -6.4%         22.6%           -6.4%
Illinois                   120.9%          -30.4%          22.2%           -8.6%         28.1%           -1.0%         41.4%           -0.9%
Indiana                      52.8%           -8.2%         49.3%           -1.6%         42.6%            5.8%         61.6%           -6.5%
Iowa                          9.1%         -11.4%          34.7%         -15.9%          33.2%           -3.6%         31.4%           -6.2%
Kansas                       16.2%           -8.0%         67.2%           -8.3%         40.9%           -1.4%         27.8%            1.2%
Kentucky                     37.2%         -38.8%          14.0%         -12.5%          11.1%         -20.7%          11.6%         -30.1%
Louisiana                    91.5%         -49.9%           9.2%         -22.5%          15.1%         -33.3%           9.8%         -36.3%
Maine                         7.4%         -28.3%          32.3%         -14.8%          31.8%         -11.6%          54.6%         -13.1%
Maryland                     36.2%         -18.2%          51.0%         -12.4%          40.5%           -9.0%         16.9%           -9.8%
Massachusetts                32.7%         -18.6%          35.1%           -5.5%         81.9%           -8.2%         69.8%           -5.4%
Michigan                     78.1%           -0.9%         55.7%           -7.5%         66.0%           -4.3%         93.1%         -28.9%
Minnesota                    30.5%           -5.4%         37.7%           -5.9%         44.8%            1.9%         63.5%            2.5%
Mississippi                129.3%          -35.8%          14.7%         -12.8%          13.4%         -18.0%          16.0%         -28.6%
Missouri                     27.7%         -19.3%          63.5%         -16.5%          52.0%           -4.6%         76.3%         -15.0%


                                                                                                                                          50




                                     Page 56                                               GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                    Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix VI: Possible Largest and Smallest Year-to-
Year Increases under Alternative Dislocated Worker
Formulas, Program Years 1999 to 2003 (continued)
                        Actual allocations             Alternative DW   1            Alternative DW 2              Alternative DW   3



 Overall volatility            0.382%                        0.271%                         0.243%                       0.292%

                      Largest %      Smallest %      Largest %     Smallest %      Largest %     Smallest %      Largest %     Smallest %
          State        increase       increase        increase      increase        increase      increase        increase      increase
Montana                     68.7%          -53.5%          42.7%         -26.8%          17.9%         -20.6%          20.3%         -16.4%
Nebraska                    25.5%            -7.4%         59.8%           -7.5%         54.4%           -2.1%         27.9%            1.6%
Nevada                      41.1%          -15.9%          41.0%            1.3%         62.4%            1.0%         53.5%         -11.3%
New Hampshire               41.9%          -30.3%          31.4%            1.3%         25.2%           -7.1%         47.0%         -11.2%
New Jersey                  13.5%          -16.1%           9.2%         -20.0%           9.1%         -10.7%           3.2%         -14.9%
New Mexico                  44.7%          -60.0%          14.8%         -26.6%          14.2%         -43.8%          10.7%         -45.4%
New York                    27.1%          -36.2%           6.7%         -24.5%           6.6%         -21.3%          13.7%         -35.2%
North Carolina              60.4%             0.3%         69.3%            3.3%         80.0%            2.3%         71.7%            5.7%
North Dakota                79.7%          -20.7%          51.9%         -17.4%          48.4%         -18.4%          40.1%         -17.2%
Ohio                        14.7%            -6.6%         39.2%           -7.5%         23.2%            0.1%         62.6%           -7.7%
Oklahoma                    24.4%          -18.8%          88.5%         -21.6%          58.3%         -11.2%          46.9%         -19.4%
Oregon                      72.2%          -13.4%          22.1%           -6.9%         17.5%           -1.8%         27.2%           -8.2%
Pennsylvania                 8.0%          -18.8%          10.7%           -9.2%         17.5%           -4.8%         19.4%           -9.3%
Rhode Island                 7.3%          -24.1%          12.7%         -15.7%          41.6%         -15.0%          14.6%         -25.6%
South Carolina              47.5%          -51.2%          38.3%         -34.2%          23.6%         -29.6%          28.7%         -41.5%
South Dakota                49.8%          -23.3%        101.3%            -4.6%         46.6%           -2.5%         16.3%         -11.7%
Tennessee                   27.5%          -24.0%          12.2%           -6.9%          9.9%           -9.0%          5.8%           -5.9%
Texas                       53.2%          -14.7%          14.6%           -7.2%         16.9%         -12.7%          19.1%         -17.0%
Utah                        49.2%            -2.2%       130.4%            -9.2%         97.1%            0.8%         77.4%            6.7%
Vermont                      7.2%          -12.3%          48.1%           -9.9%         58.6%         -12.3%          19.0%           -4.8%
Virginia                    26.3%          -10.9%          31.5%           -6.1%         17.0%           -7.6%         14.4%           -8.3%
Washington                152.5%           -43.8%          27.6%           -7.8%         15.2%           -3.9%         25.7%           -7.6%
West Virginia               45.3%          -54.4%          15.0%         -32.2%          14.4%         -38.6%          14.2%         -49.8%
Wisconsin                   26.7%           10.2%          72.7%           -1.6%         95.7%           -2.2%       186.3%          -12.4%
Wyoming                     59.6%          -25.7%          46.3%         -16.6%          24.4%         -17.6%          24.4%         -17.6%

Source: GAO analysis.
                                                                                                                                          51




                                    Page 57                                               GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                            Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix VII: Possible Average Allocations under
Alternative Formulas for H.R. 1261 Youth Program,
Program Years 1999 to 2003                               HY1                                   HY2                                   HY3
                       Actual average    Average allocation Difference betweenAverage allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between
       State             allocation        under HY 1        actual and HY 1     under HY 2        actual and HY2      under HY 3        actual and HY 3
                                 a                b                 (b-a)/a              c                (c-a)/a             d                 (d-a)/a
Alabama                      16,865,000        18,579,000               10.2%        18,194,000                 7.9%       16,363,000                -3.0%
Alaska                        3,612,000         3,164,000              -12.4%         3,164,000              -12.4%         3,164,000              -12.4%
Arizona                      17,611,000        21,201,000               20.4%        22,847,000               29.7%        19,811,000               12.5%
Arkansas                     10,221,000        12,176,000               19.1%        11,189,000                9.5%        10,026,000                -1.9%
California                  165,782,000       135,503,000              -18.3%       139,181,000              -16.0%       154,562,000                -6.8%
Colorado                      7,175,000        12,302,000               71.5%        12,726,000               77.4%        13,147,000               83.2%
Connecticut                   8,567,000         7,416,000              -13.4%         7,411,000              -13.5%         8,399,000                -2.0%
Delaware                      2,880,000         3,080,000                6.9%         3,080,000                6.9%         3,080,000                 6.9%
District of Columbia          4,189,000         3,185,000              -24.0%         3,185,000              -24.0%         3,380,000              -19.3%
Florida                      41,012,000        45,103,000               10.0%        49,379,000               20.4%        46,472,000               13.3%
Georgia                      20,391,000        29,386,000               44.1%        30,111,000               47.7%        25,672,000               25.9%
Hawaii                        5,473,000         4,889,000              -10.7%         3,850,000              -29.7%         3,804,000              -30.5%
Idaho                         4,193,000         5,376,000               28.2%         5,103,000               21.7%         4,240,000                 1.1%
Illinois                     46,862,000        41,503,000              -11.4%        40,148,000              -14.3%        48,176,000                 2.8%
Indiana                      13,214,000        15,977,000               20.9%        15,487,000               17.2%        14,702,000               11.3%
Iowa                          3,745,000         6,626,000               76.9%         6,935,000               85.2%         7,720,000             106.1%
Kansas                        4,727,000         7,379,000               56.1%         7,451,000               57.6%         8,347,000               76.6%
Kentucky                     16,263,000        15,877,000               -2.4%        15,499,000               -4.7%        14,878,000                -8.5%
Louisiana                    22,911,000        24,973,000                9.0%        23,474,000                2.5%        20,032,000              -12.6%
Maine                         3,715,000         3,290,000              -11.4%         3,249,000              -12.5%         3,941,000                 6.1%
Maryland                     13,637,000        13,506,000               -1.0%        12,812,000               -6.1%        16,368,000               20.0%
Massachusetts                14,415,000        15,900,000               10.3%        15,536,000                 7.8%       18,030,000                25.1%
 Michigan                    33,003,000        33,460,000                 1.4%       33,339,000                 1.0%       33,734,000                 2.2%
 Minnesota                     9,437,000       10,280,000                 8.9%       11,348,000               20.2%        13,932,000                47.6%
 Mississippi                 14,817,000        14,396,000                -2.8%       13,495,000                -8.9%       11,579,000               -21.9%
 Missouri                    15,324,000        16,255,000                 6.1%       17,266,000               12.7%        18,818,000                22.8%


                                                                                                                                                      52




                                            Page 58                                                 GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                     Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix VII: Possible Average Allocations under
Alternative Formulas for H.R. 1261 Youth Program,
Program Years 1999 to 2003 (continued)           HY1                                   HY2                                   HY3
                 Actual average Average allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between
      State        allocation      under HY 1        actual and HY1      under HY 2        actual and HY2      under HY 3        actual and HY 3
                           a              b                 (b-a)/a              c                (c-a)/a             d                 (d-a)/a
Montana                  3,818,000      3,285,000              -14.0%         3,324,000              -12.9%         3,227,000              -15.5%
Nebraska                2,880,000       3,937,000               36.7%         4,259,000               47.9%         5,795,000             101.2%
Nevada                  4,591,000       6,444,000               40.4%         6,573,000               43.2%         5,424,000               18.2%
New Hampshire           2,880,000       3,080,000                6.9%         3,080,000                 6.9%        3,080,000                 6.9%
New Jersey             26,366,000      23,667,000              -10.2%        22,669,000              -14.0%        22,471,000              -14.8%
New Mexico              9,777,000       8,221,000              -15.9%         8,574,000              -12.3%         8,091,000              -17.2%
New York               79,461,000      70,580,000              -11.2%        69,501,000              -12.5%        72,043,000                -9.3%
North Carolina         19,504,000      24,309,000               24.6%        25,334,000               29.9%        23,020,000               18.0%
North Dakota            2,880,000       3,080,000                6.9%         3,080,000                 6.9%        3,080,000                 6.9%
Ohio                   43,311,000      37,834,000              -12.6%        35,964,000              -17.0%        36,098,000              -16.7%
Oklahoma                9,137,000      11,591,000               26.9%        12,171,000               33.2%        12,432,000               36.1%
Oregon                 14,093,000      12,433,000              -11.8%        11,960,000              -15.1%        11,285,000              -19.9%
Pennsylvania           36,563,000      37,352,000                2.2%        34,276,000                -6.3%       36,216,000                -0.9%
Rhode Island            2,949,000       3,080,000                4.4%         3,080,000                 4.4%        3,749,000               27.1%
South Carolina         14,002,000      14,217,000                1.5%        14,411,000                 2.9%       13,217,000                -5.6%
South Dakota            2,880,000       3,080,000                6.9%         3,080,000                 6.9%        3,080,000                 6.9%
Tennessee              19,585,000      21,017,000                7.3%        19,991,000                 2.1%       23,054,000               17.7%
Texas                  89,107,000      91,788,000                3.0%        95,819,000                 7.5%       78,014,000              -12.4%
Utah                    3,508,000       6,801,000               93.8%         6,447,000               83.7%         5,954,000               69.7%
Vermont                  2,880,000      3,080,000                6.9%         3,080,000                 6.9%        3,080,000                 6.9%
Virginia               15,122,000      18,387,000               21.6%        17,682,000               16.9%        17,051,000               12.8%
Washington             24,483,000      21,259,000              -13.2%        19,378,000               -20.9%       18,007,000               -26.5%
West Virginia          10,183,000       9,474,000                -7.0%        8,191,000               -19.6%        8,360,000               -17.9%
Wisconsin               10,832,000     11,855,000                 9.4%       13,252,000                22.3%       12,429,000                14.7%
Wyoming                  2,880,000      3,080,000                 6.9%        3,080,000                 6.9%        3,080,000                 6.9%

Source: GAO analysis.
                                                                                                                                              53




                                     Page 59                                                 GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                      Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix VIII: Possible Largest and Smallest Year-
to-Year Increases under Alternative H.R.1261 Youth
Formulas, Program Years 1999 to 2003
                        Actual allocations                Alternative HY   1              Alternative HY    2            Alternative HY    3

Overall volatility             0.186%                           0.165%                          0.180%                         0.171%
                       Largest %       Smallest %      Largest %       Smallest %      Largest %      Smallest %      Largest %      Smallest %
           State        increase        increase        increase        increase        increase       increase        increase       increase
Alabama                       33.4%          -19.4%           15.6%          -16.7%          13.2%          -11.2%          10.2%          -10.0%
Alaska                        26.4%          -20.6%             8.6%         -11.8%            8.6%         -11.8%            8.6%         -11.8%
Arizona                       17.7%          -10.0%           21.9%          -13.8%          16.2%          -17.0%          15.1%          -15.7%
Arkansas                       5.3%          -16.2%           15.8%          -16.1%          13.6%          -14.6%          12.8%          -15.0%
California                     5.2%          -17.3%             7.4%         -13.5%          11.5%          -13.4%          10.6%          -13.5%
Colorado                      14.7%          -10.0%           30.0%            -6.2%        30.0%           -10.8%          30.0%          -10.4%
Connecticut                   23.5%          -20.6%            -0.8%         -12.5%           -0.8%         -15.4%            8.6%         -13.0%
Delaware                      35.6%          -20.6%           20.0%          -11.8%          20.0%          -11.8%          20.0%          -11.8%
District of Columbia          20.0%          -20.6%             6.8%         -11.8%            6.8%         -11.8%            8.9%         -10.0%
Florida                        9.5%            -5.5%          10.2%          -11.8%          12.5%          -13.6%          11.7%          -15.5%
Georgia                        9.4%          -12.8%           30.0%          -16.5%          30.0%          -15.6%          20.1%          -14.0%
Hawaii                        11.5%          -20.6%           10.7%          -17.7%           -0.8%         -13.6%           -0.8%         -15.7%
Idaho                         12.9%          -20.6%           20.0%          -15.2%          17.1%          -11.2%          14.7%            -9.5%
Illinois                      21.3%          -16.9%           14.6%            -9.8%         11.7%          -10.0%          13.7%          -11.5%
Indiana                       23.5%          -10.0%           14.5%          -10.1%          15.3%          -12.2%          14.0%            -8.7%
Iowa                          23.5%          -10.0%           30.0%          -15.7%          30.0%          -20.2%          38.6%          -19.1%
Kansas                        35.0%          -10.5%           30.0%          -10.7%          30.0%            -9.2%         37.6%          -12.8%
Kentucky                      10.4%            -8.1%          11.1%          -10.0%            6.7%         -10.0%            7.3%         -10.0%
Louisiana                     21.3%          -20.6%           10.7%          -16.0%            7.5%         -10.5%            7.5%         -11.2%
Maine                          7.8%          -20.6%             5.5%         -10.0%            4.6%         -10.0%            5.5%           -3.2%
Maryland                      23.9%          -15.1%           18.1%            -5.7%        17.4%           -10.0%          20.2%            -7.9%
Massachusetts                 23.5%          -20.6%           17.9%          -10.0%          22.8%          -10.0%          17.9%            -2.5%
Michigan                      30.0%            -9.6%          12.8%            -9.3%         11.4%          -13.8%          10.9%          -14.7%
Minnesota                     23.5%          -20.6%           14.0%            -3.2%         13.1%          -14.0%          30.0%          -13.9%
Mississippi                   38.0%          -20.6%           11.0%          -15.3%            6.6%           -7.9%           4.0%         -10.0%
Missouri                       6.8%          -10.0%             9.4%           -7.2%         10.1%            -6.0%         22.9%            -6.0%


                                                                                                                                                     54




                                      Page 60                                                 GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                    Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix VIII: Possible Largest and Smallest Year-
to-Year Increases under Alternative H.R.1261 Youth
Formulas, Program Years 1999 to 2003 (continued)
                        Actual Allocations              Alternative HY 1                Alternative HY   2            Alternative HY   3

Overall Volatility            0.186%                          0.165%                         0.180%                         0.171%

                     Largest %        Smallest %      Largest %      Smallest %      Largest %     Smallest %      Largest %     Smallest %
         State        Increase         Increase        Increase       Increase        Increase      Increase        Increase      Increase
Montana                     16.6%           -20.6%          13.6%          -19.6%         14.1%          -16.6%         12.9%          -18.5%
Nebraska                    35.6%           -20.6%          30.0%            -5.2%        30.0%          -10.9%         43.2%            -1.8%
Nevada                      23.5%           -10.0%          24.7%            -8.4%        22.2%            -7.0%        20.9%            -4.8%
New Hampshire               35.6%           -20.6%          14.5%          -11.8%         14.5%          -11.8%         14.5%          -11.8%
New Jersey                  23.5%           -20.6%            1.2%         -14.1%          -0.8%         -16.1%          -0.8%         -20.6%
New Mexico                  10.6%           -20.6%           -0.8%         -10.0%           0.5%         -10.0%          -0.8%         -12.1%
New York                    11.4%           -15.5%            4.9%         -15.4%           7.0%         -12.4%           7.7%         -11.7%
North Carolina              33.6%             -5.1%         30.0%            -3.3%        30.0%            -7.9%        30.0%            -8.4%
North Dakota                35.6%           -20.6%          20.0%          -11.8%         20.0%          -11.8%         20.0%          -11.8%
Ohio                        17.9%           -14.5%          11.3%          -14.4%         10.1%          -10.7%           9.9%         -10.0%
Oklahoma                    29.9%           -17.9%          30.0%            -8.7%        30.0%          -10.6%         30.0%          -19.4%
Oregon                      18.7%             -7.2%         10.5%            -8.6%          9.7%         -11.0%           6.6%         -10.5%
Pennsylvania                11.2%           -16.0%            5.1%           -9.8%          8.8%         -12.0%           9.0%         -10.1%
Rhode Island                33.8%           -20.6%          10.2%          -11.8%         10.2%          -11.8%         18.2%            -3.6%
South Carolina              23.5%           -10.0%            9.6%         -10.0%         10.2%          -10.9%           9.9%         -10.0%
South Dakota                35.6%           -20.6%          20.0%          -11.8%         20.0%          -11.8%         20.0%          -11.8%
Tennessee                    8.3%           -13.2%          10.5%            -9.0%          5.1%           -4.1%        19.8%            -7.5%
Texas                       11.1%             -9.1%         14.8%          -13.3%         10.4%          -10.2%         10.1%          -10.0%
Utah                        20.3%             -9.2%         43.2%            -7.0%        43.2%          -11.9%         36.1%          -10.1%
Vermont                     35.6%           -20.6%          20.0%          -11.8%         20.0%          -11.8%         20.0%          -11.8%
Virginia                    23.5%           -13.7%            9.4%           -4.4%        11.4%            -7.7%        10.9%            -7.5%
Washington                  32.3%           -10.0%          13.1%          -10.0%         10.6%          -10.0%           4.2%         -10.0%
West Virginia                8.3%           -20.6%          11.0%          -14.4%           5.3%         -13.6%           4.6%         -13.2%
Wisconsin                   33.4%             -5.9%         19.1%            -7.5%        28.2%          -13.6%         24.3%            -5.5%
Wyoming                     35.6%           -20.6%          20.0%          -11.8%         20.0%          -11.8%         20.0%          -11.8%

Source: GAO analysis.
                                                                                                                                            55




                                    Page 61                                                GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                          Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix IX: Possible Average Allocations under
Alternative Formulas for H.R. 1261 Comprehensive
Adult Program, Program Years 1999 – 2003
                                                     HC 1                                   HC 2                                  HC 3
                       Actual average Average allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between
    State                allocation      under HC 1       actual and HC 1      under HC 2        actual and HC 2     under HC 3          actual and HC 3
                              a                 b                (b-a)/a               c               (c-a)/a              d                (d-a)/a
Alabama                   42,772,000        42,615,000                 -0.4%       45,620,000                6.7%        39,039,000               -8.7%
Alaska                    18,942,000        13,208,000               -30.3%        13,208,000              -30.3%        13,208,000              -30.3%
Arizona                   40,970,000        45,296,000                10.6%        47,148,000               15.1%        44,075,000                7.6%
Arkansas                  25,070,000        25,459,000                  1.6%       27,243,000                8.7%        23,661,000               -5.6%
California               483,194,000       401,610,000               -16.9%       381,766,000              -21.0%       422,715,000              -12.5%
Colorado                  25,372,000        32,040,000                26.3%        35,693,000               40.7%        30,936,000               21.9%
Connecticut               22,655,000        25,728,000                13.6%        26,649,000               17.6%        28,314,000               25.0%
Delaware                   6,375,000         8,657,000                35.8%         8,657,000               35.8%         8,657,000               35.8%
District of Columbia      15,275,000        10,125,000               -33.7%        10,125,000              -33.7%        10,889,000              -28.7%
Florida                  118,232,000       138,370,000                17.0%       147,078,000               24.4%       129,852,000                9.8%
Georgia                   57,986,000        70,038,000                20.8%        75,725,000               30.6%        71,744,000               23.7%
Hawaii                    15,665,000        13,704,000               -12.5%        11,993,000              -23.4%        13,382,000              -14.6%
Idaho                     15,795,000        13,944,000               -11.7%        12,948,000              -18.0%        11,345,000              -28.2%
Illinois                 128,769,000       130,009,000                  1.0%      114,901,000              -10.8%       118,245,000               -8.2%
Indiana                   37,848,000        45,318,000                19.7%        48,967,000               29.4%        47,826,000               26.4%
Iowa                      15,208,000        19,092,000                25.5%        23,389,000               53.8%        24,045,000               58.1%
Kansas                    16,772,000        22,713,000                35.4%        23,438,000               39.7%        21,426,000               27.7%
Kentucky                  36,971,000        38,084,000                  3.0%       41,340,000               11.8%        41,268,000               11.6%
Louisiana                 60,013,000        48,164,000               -19.7%        49,483,000              -17.5%        47,173,000              -21.4%
Maine                     10,708,000        11,236,000                  4.9%       11,745,000                9.7%        12,390,000               15.7%
Maryland                  43,508,000        48,141,000                10.6%        45,383,000                4.3%        43,378,000               -0.3%
Massachusetts             41,111,000        48,636,000                18.3%        52,455,000               27.6%        52,749,000               28.3%
Michigan                  82,589,000        91,258,000                10.5%        89,719,000                8.6%        93,400,000               13.1%
Minnesota                 30,629,000        35,871,000                17.1%        39,776,000               29.9%        42,894,000               40.0%
Mississippi               38,496,000        29,698,000               -22.9%        30,924,000              -19.7%        27,739,000              -27.9%
Missouri                  43,049,000        48,341,000                12.3%        50,711,000               17.8%        52,316,000               21.5%


                                                                                                                                                    56




                                          Page 62                                                  GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                     Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix IX: Possible Average Allocations under
Alternative Formulas for H.R. 1261 Comprehensive
Adult Program, Program Years 1999 to 2003 (cont’d.)                                                                            HC 3
                                                  HC 1                                  HC 2
                 Actual average    Average allocation Difference betweenAverage allocation Difference between Average allocation Difference between
      State        allocation        under HC 1        actual and HC 1     under HC 2        actual and HC 2     under HC 3        actual and HC 3
                          a                b                (b-a)/a               c                (c-a)/a              d                 (d-a)/a
Montana                14,000,000        10,474,000                -25.2%      10,009,000              -28.5%         9,627,000               -31.2%
Nebraska               11,569,000        11,226,000                  -3.0%     13,721,000               18.6%        13,236,000                14.4%
Nevada                 15,675,000        18,309,000                 16.8%      16,893,000                 7.8%       14,794,000                 -5.6%
New Hampshire            7,457,000        9,108,000                 22.2%       9,458,000               26.8%         9,067,000                21.6%
New Jersey             73,749,000        82,610,000                 12.0%      76,875,000                 4.2%       75,370,000                  2.2%
New Mexico             31,553,000        22,296,000                -29.3%      22,369,000              -29.1%        24,088,000               -23.7%
New York              232,747,000       199,754,000                -14.2%     200,368,000              -13.9%       230,503,000                 -1.0%
North Carolina         61,182,000        68,432,000                 11.9%      72,012,000               17.7%        66,859,000                  9.3%
North Dakota             9,078,000        8,657,000                  -4.6%      8,657,000                -4.6%        8,657,000                 -4.6%
Ohio                  101,905,000       109,168,000                   7.1%    103,970,000                 2.0%      106,347,000                  4.4%
Oklahoma               23,591,000        26,237,000                 11.2%      31,843,000               35.0%        28,921,000                22.6%
Oregon                 49,344,000        42,781,000                -13.3%      35,886,000              -27.3%        32,098,000               -34.9%
Pennsylvania          104,289,000       117,472,000                 12.6%     110,981,000                 6.4%      112,480,000                  7.9%
Rhode Island             8,016,000        9,487,000                 18.4%       9,206,000               14.8%        11,820,000                47.5%
South Carolina         34,087,000        37,530,000                 10.1%      39,040,000               14.5%        35,160,000                  3.1%
South Dakota             8,728,000        8,657,000                  -0.8%      8,657,000                -0.8%        8,657,000                 -0.8%
Tennessee              46,413,000        50,518,000                   8.8%     54,066,000               16.5%        55,889,000                20.4%
Texas                 204,281,000       213,468,000                   4.5%    213,314,000                 4.4%      197,730,000                 -3.2%
Utah                   17,492,000        17,771,000                   1.6%     17,760,000                 1.5%       16,068,000                 -8.1%
Vermont                  6,064,000        8,579,000                 41.5%       8,579,000               41.5%         8,579,000                41.5%
Virginia               41,676,000        46,138,000                 10.7%      57,242,000               37.3%        51,702,000                24.1%
Washington             73,970,000        68,357,000                  -7.6%      58,373,000             -21.1%        61,855,000              -16.4%
West Virginia           32,977,000       22,039,000                 -33.2%     22,464,000               -31.9%       22,648,000                -31.3%
Wisconsin               37,572,000       47,368,000                  26.1%     45,968,000                22.3%       38,970,000                  3.7%
Wyoming                  7,770,000        8,657,000                  11.4%       8,657,000               11.4%        8,657,000                 11.4%

Source: GAO analysis.
                                                                                                                                                57




                                     Page 63                                                  GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                     Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix X: Possible Largest and Smallest Year-to-
Year Increases under Alternative H.R.1261 Adult
Formulas, Program Years 1999 to 2003
                        Actual allocations            Alternative HC    1          Alternative HC   2           Alternative HC 3
Overall volatility            0.185%                       0.149%                       0.126%                       0.121%
                       Largest %     Smallest %     Largest %     Smallest %     Largest %     Smallest %     Largest %      Smallest %
          State         increase      increase       increase      increase       increase      increase       increase       increase
Alabama                     21.6%         -12.0%         18.8%         -14.8%         15.2%           -8.0%           6.4%          -6.6%
Alaska                      29.8%         -31.5%          -4.9%        -14.8%          -4.9%        -14.8%           -4.9%        -14.8%
Arizona                     18.9%         -14.1%         22.1%           -7.6%        18.2%           -0.9%           6.4%          -2.0%
Arkansas                      8.6%        -19.9%           8.6%        -13.6%           9.8%          -6.6%           5.4%          -6.9%
California                  10.6%         -13.2%          -0.1%          -9.1%         -1.8%          -9.2%           4.6%          -9.3%
Colorado                    32.9%           -6.1%        23.1%           -8.6%        31.3%           -2.5%         22.8%           -6.6%
Connecticut                   0.6%        -15.4%           8.5%        -11.1%           4.2%        -10.0%            2.3%        -10.0%
Delaware                      8.6%        -15.3%         31.0%           -5.3%        31.0%           -5.3%         31.0%           -5.3%
District of Columbia        32.3%         -38.8%          -4.9%        -11.1%          -4.9%        -11.1%            4.7%        -10.0%
Florida                     20.7%           -4.0%        14.2%           -2.3%        15.0%           -1.9%         11.8%           -5.6%
Georgia                       9.1%          -6.9%        20.0%           -4.2%        26.0%           -0.9%         28.5%           -3.9%
Hawaii                      23.8%         -32.0%         12.9%         -14.8%          -4.9%        -12.6%            6.8%          -9.7%
Idaho                       20.0%         -14.1%         12.1%         -13.4%           3.4%          -9.1%          -4.9%        -11.1%
Illinois                    48.7%         -20.6%         10.3%         -10.6%         15.7%           -7.0%         17.0%         -11.5%
Indiana                     23.3%           -6.1%        15.2%           -1.9%        13.9%           -0.2%           9.1%           4.8%
Iowa                          1.4%          -6.5%        14.7%         -10.0%         30.5%           -2.2%         29.0%           -1.4%
Kansas                      12.8%           -5.2%        31.3%           -5.2%        31.3%           -4.5%         27.1%           -0.8%
Kentucky                    12.8%         -18.0%           4.5%        -12.5%           8.2%          -9.1%           7.7%          -9.1%
Louisiana                   45.8%         -32.9%           9.0%        -14.8%           4.0%          -9.1%          -0.5%          -9.1%
Maine                         5.1%        -13.8%           6.6%        -11.1%           5.1%          -5.0%           5.0%          -2.0%
Maryland                    19.7%         -11.2%         31.3%         -14.8%           9.2%          -8.3%           8.2%          -7.0%
Massachusetts               10.0%         -10.0%         23.1%           -2.8%        11.2%           -2.5%         10.7%           -1.5%
Michigan                    30.9%           -3.9%        27.5%           -8.8%        11.2%           -9.3%         21.9%           -6.8%
Minnesota                   11.4%           -6.2%        22.9%           -6.5%        14.8%           -3.9%         18.7%           -0.2%
Mississippi                 68.1%         -21.8%         18.0%         -11.1%           8.4%          -4.5%           0.8%          -5.8%
Missouri                    15.5%         -10.1%         21.8%         -10.0%         20.5%           -3.3%         21.8%           -4.2%


                                                                                                                                        58




                                     Page 64                                              GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                   Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix X: Possible Largest and Smallest Year-to-
Year Increases under Alternative H.R.1261 Adult
Formulas, Program Years 1999 to 2003 (continued)
                        Actual allocations          Alternative HC 1             Alternative HC 2             Alternative HC 3
Overall volatility            0.185%                     0.149%                       0.126%                       0.121%
                     Largest %     Smallest %     Largest %     Smallest %     Largest %     Smallest %     Largest %      Smallest %
         State        increase      increase       increase      increase       increase      increase       increase       increase
Montana                   20.5%         -24.1%         10.0%         -14.8%           2.7%        -14.7%            3.0%          -9.1%
Nebraska                    5.5%          -1.9%        12.2%         -12.3%         15.0%           -4.5%         18.0%           -2.7%
Nevada                    22.4%           -8.2%        14.9%           -7.0%          8.9%           0.4%           7.8%          -9.1%
New Hampshire               9.0%        -11.2%         18.0%           -0.2%          7.8%           2.6%           7.2%           0.0%
New Jersey                  7.6%        -10.7%           5.0%          -9.5%          1.2%        -10.0%           -0.1%        -10.0%
New Mexico                24.9%         -36.6%          -4.9%        -14.8%          -4.9%        -10.0%            8.5%        -14.3%
New York                  15.0%         -20.4%           0.2%        -11.1%          -2.4%          -9.1%         10.0%           -9.1%
North Carolina            32.4%            0.5%        28.4%           -0.3%        31.3%            4.4%         31.3%            0.6%
North Dakota                7.0%          -4.7%          5.7%          -5.3%          5.7%          -5.3%           5.7%          -5.3%
Ohio                        8.3%          -3.5%        11.0%           -7.8%        14.4%           -3.3%           8.2%          -4.9%
Oklahoma                  14.5%         -10.3%         18.1%         -11.1%         31.3%           -5.6%         31.3%           -6.7%
Oregon                    38.8%           -4.5%        17.9%           -4.2%        11.3%           -9.1%           1.8%          -9.1%
Pennsylvania                8.0%          -7.5%          6.9%          -9.4%        10.8%           -9.1%         10.8%           -6.5%
Rhode Island               -0.8%        -13.5%           6.0%          -7.3%          4.6%          -5.3%         12.3%            1.1%
South Carolina            23.1%         -24.7%           8.5%          -9.1%          4.8%          -9.1%           0.4%          -9.1%
South Dakota                5.6%          -3.4%          5.7%          -5.3%          5.7%          -5.3%           5.7%          -5.3%
Tennessee                   8.9%          -7.1%          6.9%        -11.9%           9.1%          -4.1%           7.4%          -2.8%
Texas                     15.2%           -6.4%        10.7%           -7.4%          9.6%          -5.1%           3.3%          -9.1%
Utah                      14.0%           -2.6%        22.0%           -9.1%        12.7%           -3.2%           9.0%          -9.1%
Vermont                     1.5%          -3.0%        31.3%           -5.3%        31.3%           -5.3%         31.3%           -5.3%
Virginia                  12.4%           -7.2%        11.2%           -6.4%        14.4%           -3.0%           8.3%          -2.3%
Washington                73.9%         -27.5%         23.2%           -8.5%          5.9%          -9.1%         12.9%           -9.1%
West Virginia             24.7%         -31.8%          -4.9%        -14.8%          -4.9%        -10.0%            0.5%        -11.1%
Wisconsin                 15.8%            1.4%        23.1%           -3.6%        27.3%           -1.2%         22.3%            0.1%
Wyoming                     9.3%          -6.4%          9.2%          -5.3%          9.2%          -5.3%           9.2%          -5.3%

Source: GAO analysis.
                                                                                                                                     59




                                   Page 65                                             GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                                 Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix XI: Average Hypothetical Distribution of
Funds Under H.R. 1261 Formulas, Program Years
1999 to 2003, if Phase-in Provisions Are Not Applied
                                       Comprehensive Adult Program                                                           Youth Program

                             5-year average share of available funds, PY99 - PY03                         5-year average share of available funds, PY99 - PY03

                                                     Hypothetical effect of applying proposed                                  Hypothetical effect of applying proposed
                       Actual average share of     formula to historical appropriations, without   Actual average share of        formula to historical appropriations,
                        historical allocations          adjusting for allotment differences         historical allocations     if new formula Is applied to all funds
Alabama                         1.57%                                   1.43%                               1.73%                                 1.72%
Alaska                           0.69%                                  0.58%                               0.37%                                 0.32%
Arizona                          1.50%                                  1.40%                               1.81%                                 1.79%
Arkansas                         0.92%                                  0.91%                               1.05%                                 1.02%
California                      17.70%                                 18.56%                               17.03%                               13.67%
Colorado                         0.93%                                  1.14%                               0.74%                                 1.27%
Connecticut                      0.83%                                  0.99%                               0.88%                                 0.83%
Delaware                         0.23%                                  0.23%                               0.30%                                 0.32%
District of Columbia             0.56%                                  0.52%                               0.43%                                 0.33%
Florida                          4.33%                                  4.21%                               4.21%                                 4.86%
Georgia                          2.12%                                  2.14%                               2.09%                                 2.62%
Hawaii                           0.57%                                  0.68%                               0.56%                                 0.40%
Idaho                            0.58%                                  0.52%                               0.43%                                 0.53%
Illinois                         4.72%                                  4.11%                               4.81%                                 4.51%
Indiana                          1.39%                                  1.52%                               1.36%                                 1.91%
Iowa                             0.56%                                  0.71%                                0.38%                                0.84%
Kansas                           0.61%                                  0.74%                               0.49%                                 0.87%
Kentucky                         1.35%                                  1.33%                               1.67%                                 1.73%
Louisiana                        2.20%                                  2.08%                               2.35%                                 2.05%
Maine                           0.39%                                   0.37%                               0.38%                                 0.40%
Maryland                        1.59%                                   1.50%                               1.40%                                 1.59%
Massachusetts                    1.51%                                  1.62%                                1.48%                                1.69%
Michigan                         3.03%                                  2.99%                               3.39%                                 3.91%
Minnesota                        1.12%                                  1.30%                               0.97%                                 1.72%
Mississippi                      1.41%                                  1.35%                               1.52%                                 1.27%
Missouri                         1.58%                                  1.56%                               1.57%                                 1.98%


                                                                                                                                                                          60




                                                 Page 66                                                        GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                                           Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix XI: Average Hypothetical Distribution of
Funds under H.R. 1261 Formulas, PY 1999 to 2003, if
Phase-in Provisions Are Not Applied (continued)
                                 Comprehensive Adult Program                                                           Youth Program

                       5-year average share of available funds, PY99 - PY03                         5-year average share of available funds, PY99 - PY03

                                               Hypothetical effect of applying proposed                                  Hypothetical effect of applying proposed
                 Actual average share of     formula to historical appropriations, without   Actual average share of       formula to historical appropriations,
                  historical allocations          adjusting for allotment differences         historical allocations      if new formula is applied to all funds
Montana                   0.51%                                   0.49%                               0.39%                                0.41%
Nebraska                  0.42%                                   0.45%                               0.30%                                0.51%
Nevada                    0.57%                                   0.58%                               0.47%                                0.59%
New Hampshire             0.27%                                   0.30%                               0.30%                                0.34%
New Jersey                2.70%                                   2.78%                               2.71%                                2.51%
New Mexico                1.16%                                   1.38%                               1.00%                                0.87%
New York                  8.53%                                   8.43%                               8.16%                                6.62%
North Carolina            2.24%                                   2.17%                               2.00%                                2.44%
North Dakota              0.33%                                   0.25%                               0.30%                                0.32%
Ohio                      3.73%                                   3.40%                               4.45%                                4.23%
Oklahoma                  0.86%                                   0.87%                               0.94%                                1.19%
Oregon                    1.81%                                   1.89%                               1.45%                                1.33%
Pennsylvania              3.82%                                   3.84%                               3.76%                                4.13%
Rhode Island              0.29%                                   0.29%                               0.30%                                0.32%
South Carolina            1.25%                                   1.27%                               1.44%                                1.41%
South Dakota              0.32%                                   0.25%                               0.30%                                0.32%
Tennessee                 1.70%                                   1.76%                               2.01%                                1.97%
Texas                     7.49%                                   6.91%                               9.15%                                8.27%
Utah                      0.64%                                   0.60%                               0.36%                                0.70%
Vermont                   0.22%                                   0.22%                               0.30%                                0.32%
Virginia                  1.53%                                   1.70%                               1.55%                                1.93%
Washington                2.71%                                   2.46%                               2.51%                                2.21%
West Virginia             1.21%                                   1.44%                               1.05%                                0.81%
Wisconsin                 1.38%                                   1.54%                               1.11%                                1.79%
Wyoming                   0.28%                                   0.22%                               0.30%                                0.32%

Source: GAO analysis.
                                                                                                                                                                    61




                                           Page 67                                                        GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
             Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix XII: Data Sources and Time Lags for
Potential New Formula Factors




                                                                                62




             Page 68                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
              Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix XII: Data Sources and Time Lags for
Potential New Formula Factors (continued)




                                                                                63




              Page 69                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
              Appendix I: Briefing Slides




Appendix XII: Data Sources and Time Lags for
Potential New Formula Factors (continued)




                                                                                64




              Page 70                       GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
             Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products


             Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to
             Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization. GAO-
             03-884T. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.

             Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
             Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and
             Information Sharing is Needed. GAO-03-725. June 18, 2003.

             Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for
             Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO-03-636. Washington, D.C.:
             April 25, 2003.

             Labor Market Information: Trends and Issues in Funding of State
             Programs. GAO-03-336. Washington, D.C.: December 20, 2002.

             Workforce Investment Act: States’ Spending Is on Track, but Better
             Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting. GAO-03-239. Washington,
             D.C.: November 22, 2002.

             Workforce Investment Act: Interim Report on Status of Spending and
             States’ Available Funds. GAO-02-1074. Washington, D.C.: September 5,
             2002.

             Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding
             Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274.
             Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2002.

             Formula Grants: Effects of Adjusted Population Counts on Federal
             Funding to States. GAO/HEHS-99-69. Washington, D.C.: February 26, 1999.

             Federal Grants: Design Improvements Could Help Federal Resources Go
             Further. GAO/AIMD-97-7. Washington, D.C.: December 18, 1996.




(130254)
             Page 71                           GAO-03-1043 Analysis of Alternative Formulas
                         The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of
GAO’s Mission            Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities
                         and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal
                         government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
                         evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
                         recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
                         oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government
                         is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.


                         The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
Obtaining Copies of      through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-
GAO Reports and          text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
                         products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
Testimony                using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
                         including charts and other graphics.
                         Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
                         correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site
                         daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail
                         this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail
                         alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.


Order by Mail or Phone   The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A
                         check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.
                         GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a
                         single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
                         U.S. General Accounting Office
                         441 G Street NW, Room LM
                         Washington, D.C. 20548
                         To order by Phone:     Voice:    (202) 512-6000
                                                TDD:      (202) 512-2537
                                                Fax:      (202) 512-6061


                         Contact:
To Report Fraud,
                         Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in      E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs         Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470


                         Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs           U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
                         Washington, D.C. 20548