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