Department of Labor: Noncompetitive, Discretionary Grants (Letter Report, 02/22/94, GAO/HEHS-94-9). This report reviews the way in which Labor Department processes and approves noncompetitive, discretionary grants to entities other than state and local governments. GAO (1) identifies the noncompetitive, discretionary grants of $25,000 or more awarded by labor during fiscal years 1990-92; (2) determines how labor awards and justifies grants; (3) describes the manner in which Labor oversees grantee performance and identifies the systems that Labor uses to track those grants; and (4) determines the extent of grant awards made to former employees and identifies the application review mechanisms used by Labor to spot potential conflicts of interest involving former employees. --------------------------- Indexing Terms ----------------------------- REPORTNUM: HEHS-94-9 TITLE: Department of Labor: Noncompetitive, Discretionary Grants DATE: 02/22/94 SUBJECT: Research grants Employment or training programs Discretionary grants Grant monitoring Grant administration Grant award procedures Conflict of interest Financial management systems Management information systems IDENTIFIER: Federal Assistance Award Data System ETA Program Planning Grants and Contract Control System ETA Grants and Contracts Management Information System ************************************************************************** * This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO * * report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, * * headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions * * of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are * * identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end * * of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the * * document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page * * numbers of the printed product. * * * * No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure * * captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble * * those in the printed version. * * * * A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document * * Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your * * request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, * * Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders * * for printed documents at this time. * ************************************************************************** Cover ================================================================ COVER Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate February 1994 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR - NONCOMPETITIVE, DISCRETIONARY GRANTS GAO/HEHS-94-9 Noncompetitive, Discretionary Grants Abbreviations =============================================================== ABBREV AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations BLS - Bureau of Labor Statistics ETA - Employment and Training Administration FAADS - Federal Assistance Awards Data System FAR - Federal Acquisition Regulation GCMIS - Grant and Contract Management Information System HRDI - Human Resources Development Institute MSHA - Mine Safety and Health Administration NAB - National Alliance of Business OASAM - Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management OIG - Office of the Inspector General OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Administration PRB - Procurement Review Board Letter =============================================================== LETTER B-249853 February 22, 1994 The Honorable Carl Levin Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to your request, we reviewed Department of Labor policies and practices for processing and approving noncompetitive, discretionary grants to entities other than state and local governments. Our review of Labor's grant award processes supplements information obtained by your staff on procedures for awarding and administering discretionary grants in several federal departments. Labor defines "noncompetitive, discretionary grants" as those not awarded competitively and not directed by legislation or by regulations for distribution to recipients according to a specific formula. Labor does not consider grants awarded to organizations that receive funds under the Older Americans Act to be discretionary grants.\1 For this reason, we agreed with your staff to review those grants in a separate assignment. In meetings with Committee staff, we agreed to identify the noncompetitive, discretionary grants of $25,000 or more awarded by Labor to entities other than state and local governments during fiscal years 1990-92, determine how Labor awards and justifies grants, describe the manner in which Labor oversees grantee performance and identify the systems Labor uses to track those grants, and determine the extent of grant awards made to former employees and identify the application review mechanisms used by Labor's agencies to detect potential conflicts of interest involving former employees. -------------------- \1 Labor officials cite language contained in a Conference Report (House Report 102-282) for P.L. 102-170 as authority for the Department to continue grant support to its existing Older American Act grantees. They view this language as a legislative requirement. RESULTS IN BRIEF ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1 For fiscal years 1990 through 1992, Department of Labor agencies reported awarding 134 noncompetitive, discretionary grants of $25,000 or more to organizations other than states or local governments. These grants totaled $71 million but accounted for only a small portion of Labor's total grant awards. Three agencies--the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM)--awarded the 134 grants identified, with ETA and OASAM responsible for almost all of the grants. ETA awarded more than 60 percent of the grants and more than 85 percent of the grant dollars each year. Many of ETA's grants have been awarded to the same organizations year after year, some for 25 years or more. Within Labor, most of the processes for making and overseeing grant awards are decentralized. Five Labor agencies have authority to award discretionary grants; each functions independently in awarding grants to implement particular programs. Neither Labor nor the five individual agencies regularly collect data on noncompetitive, discretionary grants as a category, but each agency has its own mechanisms for collecting and maintaining information on grants. Labor has a Procurement Review Board (PRB) that centrally reviews all proposed grant awards of $25,000 or more that are not fully and openly competed. Although PRB has found that Labor's agencies comply with Labor's grant award policies and procedures, it believes the agencies should use competition to a greater extent. After grants are awarded, the extent and effectiveness of grant monitoring vary considerably among Labor's agencies. Each agency delegates the responsibility for oversight of grantee performance to a program office that has a mission related to the purpose of the grant. Project officers in these offices are responsible for monitoring the grants. In ETA, the agency awarding the most grants, some project officers responsible for overseeing grants get little training, receive limited travel funds for oversight visits, and spend little time in grant monitoring activities. Labor has taken actions to prevent possible conflicts of interest in grant awards. For example, it requires program officials and agency heads who propose sole-source procurements to submit certifications concerning their relationships with potential sole-source grantees to avoid potential conflicts of interest. However, Labor has no formal procedure for identifying any former high-ranking Department officials who may be employed by grant applicants. Labor officials did not identify any grant applicants or grantees during 1990-92 that employed former Labor officials in a potential conflict-of-interest situation. BACKGROUND ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2 The Department of Labor awards more than $7 billion in grants each year, mostly through formula grants to states for job training services. These grants are subject to the criteria enunciated in the Federal Grant and Cooperative Act of 1977, 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308, which specifically encourages competition in making those grants. However, Labor believes that a small portion of its grant funds must be awarded noncompetitively to private and public organizations for various activities. Labor's grant processes are mostly decentralized; that is, individual agencies award and administer grants. Labor's policies and procedures explain and discuss discretionary grants. Labor's agencies use discretionary grants to fund activities such as research and analysis, pilot and demonstration projects, technical assistance, and training. Most of the noncompetitive, discretionary grants fund organizations that have long-term relationships with Labor in support of particular programs. Labor believes that the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR 6.302) and the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 permit "other than full and open competition" in these circumstances. For many of its long-term grant activities, Labor indicates that it is necessary to fund a recipient that has an established relationship with an agency in order to maintain an existing facility or capability to furnish services or benefits of particular significance to the agency on a long-term basis. Labor's agencies plan and justify their grant activities at the beginning of each fiscal year by preparing Advance Annual Procurement Plans. Labor reviews the individual agency plans and gives final approval. For noncompetitive grant awards, procedures require that agency managers prepare individual justifications and submit requests for noncompetitive actions to PRB. PRB then recommends approval or disapproval of the proposal to the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management. Within Labor, five agencies have authority to award discretionary grants. They are ETA, OSHA, OASAM,\2 Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). -------------------- \2 OASAM serves as the grant management agency for several small Labor agencies: the Women's Bureau, International Labor Affairs Bureau, Veterans' Employment Service, and the Assistant Secretary for Policy. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3 To identify the universe of noncompetitive, discretionary grant awards for fiscal years 1990-92, we contacted officials from Labor's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and Labor's grant award agencies in Washington, D.C. Labor's OIG, which audits grants and contracts, could not provide us with a comprehensive list or summary data on noncompetitive, discretionary awards, and OIG officials were unaware of any centralized source for such information. Because no departmentwide system for identifying discretionary grants existed, we interviewed officials from each of Labor's five grant agencies to determine if awards that met our criteria had been made. Officials from the three agencies that awarded noncompetitive, discretionary grants either provided us with lists of grant awards or gave us direct access to their records. To assess Labor's grant award and justification processes, we reviewed Labor's policies and procedures on grant awards and discussed the implementation of these directives with grant officers in ETA and OASAM, since these agencies awarded almost all of the discretionary grants identified. We interviewed officials from Labor's PRB to discuss its grant review policies and practices and examined PRB's fiscal year 1990-92 logs of agency requests for review of noncompetitive grants of $25,000 or more. We met with grant officers, OIG, and PRB officials to identify Labor's efforts during the grant application process to identify applicant organizations employing former Labor officials, where a conflict of interest was a possibility. In addition, we reviewed a judgmental sample of grant files for about 20 grants to examine documents related to the grant process and justification. To determine how Labor's review mechanisms were implemented and the extent to which grant oversight activities occurred, we selected a judgmental sample of 10 noncompetitive, discretionary grants awarded for 1990-92 and interviewed selected Labor project managers, primarily in ETA, to determine the extent to which they monitor grantee performance. We also met with officials in ETA and OASAM offices responsible for grant close-out and reconciliation of funds. We conducted our review between August 1992 and August 1993 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. LABOR HAS IDENTIFIED NONCOMPETITIVE, DISCRETIONARY GRANTS OF ABOUT $25 MILLION ANNUALLY ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4 Labor awards more than $7 billion in grants annually, of which its agencies identified about $25 million each year as noncompetitive, discretionary grants over $25,000. Three Labor agencies--ETA, OASAM, and OSHA--reported awarding 134 such noncompetitive, discretionary grants for 1990 through 1992.\3 MSHA and BLS did not make any such awards. As shown in table 1, ETA and OASAM were responsible for almost all of the reported noncompetitive, discretionary grant actions from 1990 through 1992. Most of OSHA's grants were awarded through state government entities. OSHA also awarded two grants to a university each year. ETA has awarded most of these noncompetitive, discretionary grants in terms of both numbers and dollars. As shown, it awarded from 26 to 32 grants totaling from $18.9 million to $22.1 million each year. OASAM reported awarding 12 to 16 grants each fiscal year, totaling from $2.1 million to $3.2 million. (See apps. I and II for information on individual ETA and OASAM grant awards.) Table 1 Noncompetitive, Discretionary Grants of $25,000 or More Awarded During 1990- 1992 (Dollars in thousands) 3- year Agency No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount total ---------- ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ====== ETA 32 $22,12 29 $21,27 26 $18,86 $62,25 5 4 0 9 OASAM 13 3,143 16 3,191 12 2,061 8,395 OSHA 2 123 2 131 2 123 377 ============================================================ Total 47 $25,39 47 $24,59 40 $21,04 $71,03 1 6 4 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- \3 ETA awards grants according to program year (July 1 to June 30). ETA documents lacked sufficient information for officials to provide grant award data by fiscal year. MOST ETA GRANTS ARE AWARDED TO THE SAME ORGANIZATIONS YEAR AFTER YEAR ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1 ETA awarded most of its reported noncompetitive, discretionary grants to the same organizations for 15 or more years. These organizations have established long-standing relationships with ETA programs, and Labor relies on them as links to local service providers. Appendix III lists 24 organizations that have received discretionary grants from Labor for 15 or more consecutive years. For program year 1992, these grantees received over $21 million in grant funds.\4 ETA officials have justified continued funding of these organizations to (1) ensure the availability of particular services or (2) maintain the capability to furnish benefits of particular significance to the Department of Labor. Two examples of such organizations are the Human Resources Development Institute (HRDI), which has received a $2.3 million grant, and the National Alliance of Business (NAB), which has received a $6.1 million grant for each of the past several years. The grant to HRDI provides Labor with research on federal job training programs and the perspective of the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) on issues important to organized labor. The NAB grant provides Labor with business' perspective on proposed legislative or regulatory changes to ETA programs and links to local private industry councils, which have important roles in ETA's programs. -------------------- \4 The list includes eight organizations that had received noncompetitive grants since 1978 to train the disabled. In 1992, these grants were awarded competitively, and these organizations continued receiving similar funding amounts. AGENCIES' GRANT AWARDS ARE CONSISTENT WITH LABOR'S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5 The Department of Labor's agencies comply with Labor's policies and procedures for awarding noncompetitive, discretionary grants. Labor's administrative policies and procedures provide guidance for individual agencies to follow in awarding grants and establish the procurement mechanisms and processes associated with grant awards throughout Labor. One such mechanism is the departmentwide PRB. It independently reviews proposed grant or contract awards of $25,000 or more that are not to be awarded through full and open competition and advises whether competition is appropriate for each proposed action. Members of PRB include Labor's Procurement Executive\5 (or designee); a designee of the Chief Financial Officer; a designee of the Solicitor; a designee of the Assistant Secretary for Policy; and the Director of the Division of Procurement and Grant Policy, who also serves as competition advocate for Labor. -------------------- \5 Labor's Procurement Executive is the Senior Executive Service staff person with responsibility for oversight of procurement actions at the Department level. PRB ENCOURAGES COMPETITION IN GRANT ACTIONS, BUT IMPEDIMENTS TO COMPETITION EXIST ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1 Although PRB approved almost all the noncompetitive, discretionary grant requests it reviewed in fiscal years 1991 and 1992, it has encouraged Labor's agencies to award more grants competitively. During fiscal year 1991, PRB approved 37 of 39 grant recommendations submitted by Labor agencies. Of the two proposals not approved, one was subsequently approved and the other was later included as an extension of a prior grant. In fiscal year 1992, PRB approved 49 of 53 agency grant requests submitted. Of the four requests not approved, two were resubmitted and approved, one was disapproved for having improper signatures, and the other was resubmitted as a request for contract. PRB has stated that continual, long-term, sole-source relationships with the same organizations are inconsistent with Labor's competition policy. In keeping with that position, PRB approved some of ETA's long-standing grants contingent upon the agency awarding these grants competitively in future program years. For example, in 1991 PRB approved final 1-year modifications to existing sole-source grants for ETA's programs to aid the disabled. ETA appealed and asked that the sole-source grants be continued, but PRB insisted that "after ten years a competition would appear to be overdue." In 1992, ETA solicited proposals on a competitive basis for training and employment programs for the disabled. ETA received and reviewed 23 proposals (8 from the existing grantees and 15 from new organizations) under the competitive announcement. As a result of the competition, the existing eight grantees and one new grantee were selected to receive grants through the program. Total grant funding was raised from $4 million to $4.2 million. Although PRB encourages Labor's agency officials to seek competition, competition is not required. PRB's recommendations are advisory, and the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management must approve them. In addition, Labor's procedures provide that the Secretary of Labor may determine that a noncompetitive award is in the public interest. Other circumstances affect competition. Officials stated that, for certain grants, for example, the one for the Displaced Homemaker Network, they believed that they were obliged by their interpretation of some legislative history to continue to award grants to the same organizations that had been funded in prior years. LABOR HAS NO CENTRAL SYSTEM TO IDENTIFY AND TRACK GRANT AWARDS ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6 Labor has no central departmentwide management information system to identify and track grants awarded by its five agencies with grant authority. In addition, Labor's individual agencies do not routinely develop management information reports that identify noncompetitive, discretionary grants. As a result, after we met with officials from the five agencies that award grants and discussed our definition of a noncompetitive, discretionary grant, agency staff attempted to identify grant awards meeting our criteria from their records. Each agency has its own mechanisms for collecting and maintaining information on grants. In addition, the Department participates in the Federal Assistance Award Data System (FAADS). This system, required by 31 U.S.C. 6102a, maintains selected, governmentwide computer-based data on federal financial assistance award transactions and provides quarterly reports of federal assistance actions, including grants. The collection and processing systems that Labor uses to gather agency data for FAADS contain components that could be used as a basis for a departmentwide system to identify and track grant awards. In ETA, issues relating to information management for grant activities were addressed in two Labor OIG reports.\6 In response to the OIG reports, ETA proposed to develop the Program Planning Grants and Contract Control System to improve grant management and oversight. Although we did not find evidence of this system, we found that ETA does maintain financial information on grants in a computerized system called the Grants and Contracts Management Information System (GCMIS). However, the system lacks sufficient descriptive information on grants to be an effective management information system. ETA officials responsible for developing and operating GCMIS confirmed that it is primarily used as an accounting system to reconcile financial information. An ETA official responsible for developing and maintaining GCMIS said that Labor has no current plans to expand GCMIS to enhance its use as a grant management tool. -------------------- \6 Effectiveness of Procured Goods and Services in the Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, OIG, 17-90-014-03-380 (Washington, D.C.: July 1990) and Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration: Effectiveness of Discretionary Awards, U.S. Department of Labor, OIG, 17-92-003-03-001 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 1991). GRANTS MANAGEMENT AND GRANT PROGRAM OVERSIGHT ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7 In ETA and OASAM, procurement and program offices have separate and distinct functions in relation to grants. Procurement offices are responsible for processing grant awards, releasing funds to grantees, and closing out grants. Program offices that have missions related to the purpose of the grants are responsible for oversight of grantee performance. The procurement and program offices work together in planning and awarding grants. Program offices alone are responsible for ensuring that grantees are effective and efficient in accomplishing the purposes of the grant. GRANT OVERSIGHT IS NOT CONSISTENT ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1 Labor's administrative guidance does not directly address grant oversight. As a result, its agencies have no specific direction on performing these activities, and each agency oversees discretionary grants in its own way. Even in the same agency, oversight of grant activities varies considerably among program offices. In some ETA program offices, for example, project officers responsible for overseeing grants have limited travel funds for on-site evaluations and spend little time in grant monitoring activities. In other program offices, grant oversight responsibilities are more structured and receive greater priority, attention, and resources. The impact of project officers on the grant approval process also varies widely among program offices. For some programs, project officers have little or no voice in the renewal of their grants, some of which are the long-term, continuing grants covering several years. In other programs, project officers communicate directly with top management on the status of grantee activities, and the officers' views are solicited in deciding whether to award future funding to grantees. STAFF TRAINING ON GRANT OVERSIGHT VARIES ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.2 Staff training for grant oversight efforts is handled differently by the grant agencies and their related program offices. For example, OASAM awards and manages grant funds for several agencies, but it is not responsible for training staff in these agency program offices to oversee the grant and grantee performance. The agencies handle those responsibilities as they see fit. For example, the Women's Bureau trained its staff through grant and contract administration training offered by the Office of Personnel Management, while the Veterans' Employment and Training Service developed a special internal training program on grant oversight for its program officers. In ETA, training of staff for grant oversight varied widely among its program offices. For example, in one program office, staff responsible for grant oversight received 1-day overview training provided by Labor, while other ETA program offices sent staff to more extensive training courses outside of Labor. In response to the OIG reports, ETA agreed to develop and provide grant monitoring training. While we note that some formal training for ETA grant officers has been developed and was provided at one time, such training is not uniformly required of all ETA staff with program oversight and grant management responsibilities. LABOR SCREENS OFFICIALS FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8 Labor's policies include guidance addressing possible conflicts of interest resulting from sole-source acquisitions. These policies require that program officials and agency heads responsible for requests for advisory services or noncompetitive actions explain to PRB past or existing relationships with proposed grantees. For each grant application, responsible Labor officials explain their past or existing relationships with the applicant organization or certify that no relationship exists. We asked Labor whether it makes a similar effort to identify former high-ranking Labor officials who may be employed by grant applicant organizations, although it is not required by law to do so. It does not; nor does Labor maintain a reference list of former high-ranking officials for its employees to check for possible conflicts of interest. In response to our request, Labor developed such a list by manually reviewing its telephone directories for recent years. During our review of specific grant files, we attempted to identify the individuals employed by the organizations receiving grants to determine whether any were former Labor employees. This identification was not possible in most of the grants that we reviewed because Labor does not require that the names of all principal persons funded by the grant be specified in the application. However, both PRB and OIG officials told us that they did not identify any grant applicants during 1990-92 that employed former Labor officials. AGENCY COMMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9 We provided copies of our draft report to Department of Labor officials for comment. Labor generally concurred with the facts and information contained in the report. With regard to multiyear noncompetitive awards, Labor's comments indicated that while ETA has funded certain groups of organizations on a noncompetitive basis, it is committed to fostering competition to the maximum extent. In addition, Labor indicated that through PRB it has reevaluated all long-term noncompetitive commitments and established a more competitive atmosphere for these activities. Labor's comments also included references to the portion of the report that discussed grants under the Older Americans Act. Page 1 of this report states that Labor does not consider grants awarded under the Older Americans Act to be discretionary grants, and therefore we did not include them in our review. Modifications to the dollar amounts for the two OSHA grants awarded to other than state and local governments have been incorporated in table I. The Department of Labor's written comments are included as appendix IV. A copy of this report is being sent to the Secretary of Labor. Copies will be made available to others upon request. Please call me on (202) 512-7017 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. Sincerely yours, Clarence C. Crawford Associate Director, Education and Employment Issues EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION'S NONCOMPETITIVE GRANT AWARDS OF OVER $25,000, PROGRAM YEARS 1990-92 =========================================================== Appendix I (Dollars in thousands) Recipient 1990 1991 1992 ------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- Training and technical assistance/Public interest groups ------------------------------------------------------------ National Association of $ 361 $ 361 $ 361 Counties National Governors' 322 407 460 Association U.S. Conference of Mayors 258 258 258 National Conference of Black 206 206 206 Mayors National Conference of State 257 257 257 Legislatures ============================================================ Subtotal 1,404 1,489 1,542 Business/labor partnerships ------------------------------------------------------------ National Alliance of Business 5,800 6,100 6,145 Human Resources Development 2,225 2,300 2,300 Institute ============================================================ Subtotal 8,025 8,400 8,445 Community-based partnerships ------------------------------------------------------------ National Urban League 515 515 515 WAVE 1,388 1,388 1,388 National Puerto Rican Forum 818 250 350 Opportunities 1,383 500 1,383 Industrialization Centers of America National Council of La Raza 400 400 550 SER-Jobs for Progress, Inc. 927 927 927 National training programs ------------------------------------------------------------ PREP, Inc. 670 670 670 Home Builders Institute 540 540 540 National Tooling & Machining 1,029 1,029 1,029 Association ============================================================ Subtotal 7,670 6,219 7,352 Programs for the disabled\a ------------------------------------------------------------ Association for Retarded 1,195 1,195 Citizens National Association of 309 309 Rehabilitation Facilities Epilepsy Foundation 716 716 International Association of 268 343 Machinists Goodwill Industries of 527 527 America, Inc. Mainstream, Inc. 360 360 Electronic Industries 297 297 Foundation National Federation of the 251 251 Blind ============================================================ Subtotal 3,923 3,998 Other grants ------------------------------------------------------------ Northwest Policy Institute (U. 80 Wash.) Southport Institute for Policy 150 Analysis Manpower Demonstration 250 250 Research Corporation Center for Governmental 58 Studies (N. Ill. U.) Foundation for Advancements in 400 Science & Education (FASE) American Society for Training 92 & Development The West Philadelphia 71 Partnership Public/Private Ventures (P/ 200 PV) Draketail Maritime, Ltd. 99 Council of Jewish 350 Organizations of Boro Park Maine Technical College System 200 Read America 94 American Association of 250 Community Colleges Southern Governors' 135 Association National Council on the Aging 250 National Youth Employment 59 Coalition Association of Farmworker 220 Opportunity Programs MDC, Inc. 125 195 Contact Center, Inc. 48 168 48 ============================================================ Subtotal 1,103 1,168 1,521 Program year total $22,125 $21,274 $18,860 Number of grantees 32 29 26 ------------------------------------------------------------ \a The 1992 grants were awarded competitively. Awards that totaled $4.2 million were given to the eight existing grantees and one new grantee. OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT'S NONCOMPETITIVE GRANT AWARDS OF OVER $25,000, FISCAL YEARS 1990-92 ========================================================== Appendix II (Dollars in thousands) Recipient 1990 1991 1992 ------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- Organization for Economic $ 30 $ $ Cooperation Temple University 30 Ohio State University-Poland 87 178 87 Displaced Homemaker Network 500 650 485 Claremont University-Union & 50 50 Education Study International Labor Office 150 Museum Service International- 57 DOL Hall of Fame Delphi Research-Housing 76 Symposium Colorado University & 912 Technical Assistance Training Corporation West Virginia University 500 684 Research Corporation-Job Network National Media Outreach 337 Center-Mentor Project ------------------------------------------------------------ One-to-One Partnership, Inc. 50 Veterans Production USA, Inc. 150 150 International Labor 93 Organization-Research Intern Use International Labor Office- 85 Information on Drugs Duquesne University-Polish 85 Worker Project National Women's Economic 108 57 Alliance Operation Able of Greater 104 Boston Advocates of Policy Evaluation 100 100 Cornell University-Worker 298 Surveys in Europe San Diego Consortium/Private 40 Industry Council ------------------------------------------------------------ AFL/CIO Building Trades Craft 240 440 140 Union Consortium Upjohn Institute for 77 Employment Research Vietnam Veterans Leadership 100 Program, Inc. Economic Foundation, NSZZ 202 Solidarnosc Ohio State University- 123 Training for Hungary Houston Drug Free Business 431 Initiative-Drug Study Economic Development Industry 162 Corporation/Boston- Providence Tools Free Trade Union Institute 75 AFL/CIO Economic Innovation 122 International ============================================================ Fiscal year total $3,143 $3,191 $2,061 Number of grantees 13 16 12 ------------------------------------------------------------ GRANTS TO THE SAME GRANTEES OVER SEVERAL CONSECUTIVE YEARS ========================================================= Appendix III (Dollars in thousands) Number of Grant type/grantees 1992 amount years ------------------------------ ------------- ------------- Partnership programs ------------------------------------------------------------ National Alliance of Business $ 6,100 25 Human Resources Development 2,300 23 Institute ============================================================ Subtotal 8,400 Training/technical asst. programs ------------------------------------------------------------ National Urban League, Inc. 515 26 SER -Jobs for Progress, Inc. 927 28 WAVE, Inc. (Formerly 7000) 1,388 15 National Council on La Raza 550 15 Home Builders Institute 540 26 PREP, Inc. 670 25 National Tooling & Machining 1,029 31 Association National Puerto Rican Forum 350 16 Opportunities 1,383 23 Industrialization Centers of America ============================================================ Subtotal 7,352 Training/employment for disabled\a ------------------------------------------------------------ Mainstream, Inc. 359 15 Epilepsy Foundation 716 15 National Association of 309 15 Rehabilitation Facilities Goodwill Industries of 488 15 America, Inc. National Federation for the 251 15 Blind Electronic Industries 297 15 Foundation Association for Retarded 1,195 15 Citizens International Association of 268 15 Machinists ============================================================ Subtotal 3,883 Public interest groups\b ------------------------------------------------------------ National Association of 361 20 Counties National Conference of State 257 20 Legislators National Governors' 460 20 Association National Conference of Black 206 20 Mayors U.S. Conference of Mayors 258 20 ============================================================ Subtotal 1,542 ============================================================ Total $21,177 ------------------------------------------------------------ \a Grants were awarded competitively for 1992 for the first time. As a result of the competition, the previously funded organizations received grants of similar amounts, and one new grantee was added. \b We used an estimate of about 20 years, since Employment and Training Administration (ETA) officials were unable to determine when in the 1970s the grants began. (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ========================================================= Appendix III (See figure in printed edition.) Now on p. 1. (See figure in printed edition.) Now on pp. 2 and 6. Now on p. 5. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT =========================================================== Appendix V HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION, WASHINGTON, D.C. Linda G. Morra, Director, Education and Employment Issues Larry Horinko, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7001 George A. Erhart, Senior Economist OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, WASHINGTON, D.C. Stefanie G. Weldon, Senior Attorney DETROIT REGIONAL OFFICE James R. Owczarzak, Senior Evaluator Robert Y. Hill, Jr., Evaluator