This document is a summary of a printed document. The printed document may contain charts and photographs which are not reproduced in this electronic version. If you require the printed version of this document, contact the Freedom of Information Act Officer, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, or call (202) 693-5116.
This report reflects the findings of the Office of Inspector General at the time that the audit report was issued. More current information may be available as a result of the resolution of this audit by the Department of Labor program agency and the auditee. For further information concerning the resolution of this report's findings, please contact the program agency.
OIG has started using Acrobat 4.0 to prepare it's latest Audit reports. If you are experiencing problems downloading some of the larger PDF files, you may want to download the latest version of the Adobe Acrobat Reader by clicking the link provided below.
As a part of our continuing assessment of DOL's compliance with GPRA, we reviewed the ETA-administered dislocated worker programs (the Dislocated Worker, Trade Adjustment Assistance, and the North American Free Trade Agreement Transitional Adjustment Assistance programs) in five states for the period October 1, 1998 through July 30, 2000. Our review encompassed (1) Federal, state, and contractor monitoring and general controls over performance information systems, (2) compliance with GPRA, and (3) an assessment of program direction provided by ETA and the degree to which ETA fostered effective cooperation with the entities on which it relies to achieve program results.
Our review identified no deficiencies in general controls over performance systems or state and contractor monitoring of performance information. However, ETA's monitoring of performance information could be significantly improved. While ETA's overall program goals, strategies, and performance measures for dislocated worker programs were in compliance with GPRA requirements, office and division mission statements were process oriented rather than outcome oriented and there were no formal performance measure at the office or division level. Finally, we found that ETA generally provided clear and consistent program direction and maintained effective cooperation with its program partners.
ETA indicated general agreement with our recommendations to strengthen its monitoring of performance information, revise mission statements to be outcome oriented, and develop office and division level performance measures.
(OA Report No. 23-01-001-03-330, issued March 21, 2001)
Get Complete Report
